Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-5-01Tentative BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T E N T A T I V E MAY 1, 2013 9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members. 6. Recognitions: a. Paul Wright for service on the Architectural Review Board. b. Proclamation recognizing May 5-11, 2013 as Municipal Clerks Week. c. Proclamation recognizing May 6-10, 2013 as Public Service Recognition Week. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 8. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). Discussion/Action Items: 9. First Quarter CY 2013 – Capital Projects Status Report. 10. Implementing Multi-year Capital Budgeting. 11. Courts Study Results Update. 12. Economic Vitality Plan Quarterly Report. 13. 12:00 noon - Closed Meeting. 14. Certify Closed Meeting. 15. Boards and Commissions: a. Vacancies/Appointments. 1:30 p.m. - Public Hearings: 16. An ordinance to amend Chapter 2, Administration, of the Albemarle County Code, to amend Section 2- 202, Compensation of board of supervisors, to increase the compensation of the members of the Board of Supervisors by an inflation factor of 2% effective July 1, 2013. 17. Consider granting water and sewer easements to the Albemarle County Service Authority across portions of Old Trail Park (TMP 55E-01--H) to provide sanitary sewer and water service to nearby properties in the Old Trail Subdivision. 18. FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations. Presentations: 19. Board-to-Board Quarterly Report, Steve Koleszar. 20. Albemarle County Service Authority Quarterly Report, Gary O’Connell. 21. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Quarterly Report, Tom Frederick. 22. Contradictory Consequences – Cash Proffers White Paper, Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0501/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/2/2020 4:23:21 PM] Tentative Work Session: 23. Review of County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program Budget. 24. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 25. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 26. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 8.1 Approval of Minutes: February 6, February 22, February 25, March 4 and March 27, 2013. 8.2 Rio Road West Property Acquisition. 8.3 Audio Streaming of Board of Supervisors Meetings. 8.4 Line of Duty Act (LODA) Trust Agreement between VACORP and Albemarle County. 8.5 ZMA-2004-00007. Belvedere – Variations from Code of Development. 8.6 SDP-2013-00009. Seminole Trail Fire Station – Zoning Ordinance Waivers. 8.7 Resolution to Approve an Alternate to Act for the County Executive on The Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention. FOR INFORMATION: 8.8 Planning Commission Annual Report. 8.9 VDoT, Culpeper District, Albemarle County Monthly Report, May 2013. 8.10 FY 2013 3rd Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report. 8.11 County Grant Application Report. 8.12 Illegal Hunting and Trespassing Enforcement. 8.13 CCP-2013-00001. County Use of 705 Rio Road West (Tax Map 06100-00-00-120K0). file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0501/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/2/2020 4:23:21 PM] Tentative NEW: CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY Return to Top of Agenda Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0501/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/2/2020 4:23:21 PM] Municipal Clerks Week May 5-11, 2013 Whereas, the Municipal Clerk is a time honored and vital part of local government that exists throughout the world and serves as an information center on functions of local government and community; and Whereas, the Municipal Clerk is the oldest among public servants; and Whereas, the Municipal Clerk provides a professional link between the citizens and local governing bodies and agencies of government at all levels; and Whereas, Municipal Clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and impartiality, rendering equal service to all; and Whereas, Municipal Clerks continually strive to improve the administration of the affairs of the Office of Municipal Clerk through participation in education programs, seminars, workshops and the annual meeting of their state, province, county and international professional organizations; and Whereas, it is most appropriate that we recognize the accomplishments of the Municipal Clerk; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that, we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do recognize May 5 – 11, 2013 as Municipal Clerks Week and further extend appreciation to Ella W. Jordan, CMC (Certified Municipal Clerk) Clerk, and Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk, and to all Municipal Clerks for the vital services they perform and their exemplary dedication to the communities they represent. Signed and sealed this 1st day of May, 2013. Return to agenda PUBLIC SERVICE RECOGNITION WEEK MAY 6-10, 2013 WHEREAS, Americans are served daily by public servants at the federal, state, county, and city levels. These unsung heroes do the work that keeps our nation working; and WHEREAS, public service is among the most demanding and noble of professions; and WHEREAS, Public Service Recognition Week is observed annually to celebrate and recognize the valuable service that public servants provide to the nation; and WHEREAS, over 500 Albemarle County Local Government employees work tirelessly to serve our residents, businesses, and visitors, providing them with outstanding customer service while maintaining careful stewardship of the resources with which they have been entrusted; and WHEREAS, without these public servants at every level, continuity would be impossible in a democracy that regularly changes its leaders and elected officials; and WHEREAS, we appreciate the many accomplishments and contributions made daily by these public servants; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do proclaim May 6-10, 2013 as Public Service Recognition Week and call upon the citizens of Albemarle County to join their fellow citizens across the County to recognize the crucial role of public employees. Signed and sealed this 1st day of May, 2013. Return to agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Rio Road West Property Acquisition SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Authorize Purchase of 705 Rio Road West Property and adopt Bond Reimbursement Resolution STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Henry PRESENTER (S): N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On December 27, 2012 the County Executive, on behalf of the County, entered into a contingent contract to purchase 3.11 acres of property located at 705 Rio Road West (TMP 61-120K) currently owned by Martha Jefferson Hospital. The potential uses identified for this property are a library and long-term storage facility to replace existing facilities. The County retained Heyward Boyd Architects to perform reasonable due diligence to investigate any potential environmental hazards, and to determine the feasibility of converting the former Phillips Supply Building at 705 Rio Road West into a library and storage facility. The contract to purchase the property is contingent upon approval by the Board. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs. DISCUSSION: Heyward Boyd Architects submitted its draft study in February 2013. No significant environmental hazards were discovered. The study also concluded that the building located at 705 West Rio Road was appropriate for repurposing as a community library and a storage facility based on a test-fit design. The property would provide a permanent location for the Northside Library and long-term County warehouse/storage space. The new facility would provide approximately 30,000 square feet of library space, space for the bookmobile and branch office space, and over 20,000 square feet of warehouse space. The Northside Library is currently located in leased space at Albemarle Square, and the County warehouse/storage space is currently located in leased space at the former Comdial building on Seminole Trail. The new facility would eliminate the need for those two leased spaces. As documented in prior CIP submissions for the construction of a new Northside Library, a larger library facility is needed to support growth in the northern urban area. Based on population figures and guidelines from the Community Facilities Plan and the State Library, the current Northside Library does not meet minimum requirements. As the northern region of the County continues to develop, the population served and usage levels of the Northside Library will continue to increase. The requirement for a larger facility was identified by a County-funded study in June 2001. With a relatively minor investment in making physical changes to the existing building’s basement, the County's warehouse/storage needs could be met, partially offset by discontinuing the lease payments for the current warehouse facility. This Rio Road West location for the replacement Northside Library offers an exciting opportunity to build community cohesion and identity by actively engaging the public in programming and space considerations. County staff will develop a public participation plan, according to Albemarle’s administrative guideline on community engagement, that will provide a clear and transparent process for engaging community members, including the Places29 Community Advisory Council and other stakeholder groups, at appropriate points in the design and construction process. BUDGET IMPACT: With Board action to appropriate the funds for the proposed project, staff could immediately proceed to “fast track” design development in the current fiscal year, with the goal of completing the project in advance of the expiration of the Northside Library lease on October 31, 2014. Notwithstanding this fast track approach, staff recognizes that this is an aggressive schedule and some extension of the Northside Library lease may be required. The property acquisition cost is $3,000,000, and the estimated cost to renovate the facility for the intended uses is an additional $8,820,373 for a total AGENDA TITLE: Rio Road West Property Acquisition May 1, 2013 Page 2 project cost of $11,820,373. The proposed revenue sources include $11,320,373 in loan proceeds and $500,000 in Stonefield proffers. Funding for the replacement Northside Library and warehouse/storage space is programmed to be funded by borrowed funds. The debt service associated with the loan proceeds is estimated to be issued in FY 16 for a 20-year term at an interest rate of 5.0%. The additional debt service is expected to be within the limits defined by the County’s Financial Policies. Although decreased by this project, the CIP fund balance at the end of five years is expected to meet the $2 million reserve goal. The current Seminole Place warehouse lease expires on May 31, 2014. If the proposed project and funding schedule are met, the County may be able to avoid renewing the warehouse lease. Discontinuing the lease on May 31, 2014 would result in a savings of $922,000 to the Adopted FY 14 five-year CIP. The current Northside Library lease expires on October 31, 2014. Staff will make every effort to complete the project by the expiration date; however, the County may need to extend the lease to coordinate with the construction schedule. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) approving the purchase of 705 Rio Road West (TMP 61-120K) and authorizing the County Executive to execute any documents required to complete the property acquisition, upon the review and approval of the documents by the County Attorney. This includes the acceptance of any easements necessary for the intended use of the property. Staff also recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing (Attachment B). This resolution would allow the County to use up to $11,820,373 in bond proceeds to reimburse the capital budget for expenditures incurred prior to the programmed borrowing of funds for this project. In a separate agenda item, the Board will be requested to approve appropriation number 2013-088 totaling $11,820,373, which provides funding for the purchase of the property and the required building renovations. ATTACHMENTS: A-Resolution Approving the Property Acquisition and Authorizing the County Executive to Execute Required Documents B-Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 705 RIO ROAD WEST (TMP 61-120K) WHEREAS, the County entered into a contingent Agreement of Sale for property located at 705 Rio Road West (TMP 61-120K) dated December 27, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Board desires to purchase the property located at 705 Rio Road West (TMP 61-120K) to provide necessary public facilities. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby approves the acquisition of the property located at 705 Rio Road West (TMP 61-120K), and authorizes the County Executive to execute any documents required to complete the property acquisition, upon the review and approval of the documents by the County Attorney. This includes the acceptance of any easement necessary for the intended use of the property. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of ___ to ___, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________. Return to exec summary ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES WITH PROCEEDS OF A BORROWING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Virginia (the “Borrower”), intends to acquire, construct and equip Albemarle County Parcel No. 06100-00-00-120K0 (also known as 705 Rio Road West) (hereinafter, the “Project”); and WHEREAS, plans for the Project have advanced and the Borrower expects to advance its own funds to pay expenditures related to the Project (the “Expenditures”) prior to incurring indebtedness and to receive reimbursement for such Expenditures from proceeds of tax-exempt bonds or taxable debt, or both; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that: 1. The Borrower intends to utilize the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds (the “Bonds”) or to incur other debt, to pay the costs of the Project in an amount not currently expected to exceed $11,820,373. 2. The Borrower intends that the proceeds of the Bonds be used to reimburse the Borrower for Expenditures with respect to the Project made on or after the date that is no more than 60 days prior to the date of this Resolution. The Borrower reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds or other debt. 3. Each Expenditure was or will be, unless otherwise approved by bond counsel, either (a) of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in each case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to a party that is not related to or an agent of the Borrower so long as such grant does not impose any obligation or condition (directly or indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the Borrower. 4. The Borrower intends to make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by the Borrower that evidences the Borrower’s use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the Project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The Borrower recognizes that exceptions are available for certain “preliminary expenditures,” costs of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by “small issuers” (based on the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure) and expenditures for construction of at least five years. 5. The Borrower intends that the adoption of this resolution confirms the “official intent” within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of ______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on ______________. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Audio Streaming of Board of Supervisors Meetings SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Update on options regarding audio streaming of Board of Supervisors meetings STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley and Davis; and Ms. Catlin and Ms. Jordan PRESENTER (S): N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: At the Board’s January 4, 2012 meeting, staff presented information regarding the possibility of video streaming Board meetings. Due to the cost of video stream ing, and the County’s resource limitations, Board members approved the County proceeding with a free advertisement-supported audio stream of Board meetings on the U Stream channel for a trial period in order to assess listener levels and potential concerns to determine the best long term solution to meet the Board’s desire to provide live audio streaming. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 6. Promote individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community challenges . DISCUSSION: Live streaming of meetings has had no negative impacts on the County’s server or bandwidth capacity s ince the program establishing an advertisement-supported audio streaming of Board meetings on the County’s U Stream channel began last year. Listener levels have steadily increased and audio streaming has become an expected and relied upon opportunity for the public and the media to access Board meetings as they are occurring. However, the frequency and length of the advertisements has increased over time, and the nature of those advertisements, which the County does not control, have become disruptive to the listener experience. The best way to guarantee the quality and reliability of the audio streaming experience is to shift from the free advertisement -supported model to one where the county funds an ad-free live audio stream. BUDGET IMPACT: Contracting an ad-free audio cast for the necessary listener hours to meet the expected level of demand would cost approximately $99 per month. If the listener hours exceed the standard 100-hours of listening, the cost would increase by $.50 per listener hour. Based on the current number of viewers, staff does not anticipate the cost to exceed $99 per month. Listenership will be monitored regularly to assess whether adequate listening hours are being provided at this funding level. The cost can be absorbed within the Board of Supervisors’ current budget. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the County acquire an ad-free audio stream of Board meetings on the U Stream channel for a six-month trial period at a cost of $99 per month with a re-evaluation at the end of the trial period. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Line of Duty Act (LODA) Trust SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Adopt LODA Trust Agreement between VACORP and Albemarle County STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis and Brown, and Ms. Burrell and Ms. Allshouse L. PRESENTER (S): N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Line of Duty Act (LODA) was initiated and implemented by the State and is administered in accordance with Virginia Code §§ 9.1-400 et seq. Prior to FY2012, the State funded the costs associated with providing LODA benefits. Changes to LODA made by the Virginia General Assembly in 2011 and 2012 resulted in localities becoming responsible for funding LODA benefit costs, effectively making LODA an unfunded mandate. LODA provides important benefits to public safety officers and public safety volunteers and/or their beneficiaries due to death or disability resulting from performance of the officer’s or volunteer’s duties. LODA benefits include:  A one-time death benefit payment of $100,000 to a covered employee’s beneficiary;  Continued health insurance coverage for the surviving spouse and any dependents of a covered employee who dies in the line of duty; and  Continued health insurance coverage for the covered employee, spouse, and dependent children for a covered employee who is disabled in the line of duty after July 1, 2000. Covered persons in the County include:  Law enforcement officers;  The Sheriff and Deputy Sheriffs; and  Members of the fire companies, fire departments and rescue squads recognized by the County as an integral part of the County’s official public safety program . LODA coverage also applies to death or disability caused by service-related hypertension or heart disease, and to qualified volunteer or salaried firefighters whose death or disability is caused by a respiratory disease. In addition, LODA coverage applies to a multitude of cancers, including prostate, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer, for those with 12 years of continuous service who have had contact with toxic substances encountered in the line of duty. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community. DISCUSSION: Localities were required to make an irrevocable choice to either opt-in or opt-out of the State’s plan by Board resolution before the start of FY12. If the decision were to opt-in, the result would have been annual bills from the Virginia Retirement System, the LODA plan administrator for the State, at whatever rate the State establishes for that year. On June 6, 2012, the Board adopted a resolution to opt-out of the State’s LODA plan and to purchase prospective LODA coverage from VACORP. The County’s eight existing claims that were filed with the State before July 1, 2012 are also covered by VACORP, however, the County is required to join the VACORP LODA Trust and to enter into a Trust Agreement with VACORP in order for VACORP to cover the liabilities associated with those claims. AGENDA TITLE: Line of Duty Act (LODA) Trust May 1, 2013 Page 2 The VACORP LODA Trust was created to address the following issues related to funding those claims: 1. Recording the liabilities for known, pre-existing LODA claims that occurred prior to July 1, 2012; and 2. Recording the liabilities for unknown, pre-existing LODA claims that occurred but were not reported prior to July 1, 2012. VACORP members pay the annual cost of the LODA claims that existed and were reported before opting out of the state fund. The establishment of the VACOPR LODA Trust allows the Pool to direct annual contributions for the above-described claims to the LODA Trust. This enables the Trust to book the liabilities associated with the claims. Absent a Trust membership, the liability for these claims must be carried on the County’s financial statements. With the LODA Trust, the financial liability exposure for the Pool and its members is diminished. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no membership cost associated with the LODA Trust Agreement. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the County Executive to execute the attached Trust Agreement (Attachment B). ATTACHMENTS: A – Resolution B – LODA Trust Agreement Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LODA TRUST AGREEMENT BETWEEN VACORP AND THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE WHEREAS, the County opted out of the State’s Line of Duty Act (LODA) Plan and purchased prospective LODA coverage from VACORP effective July 1, 2012; and WHEREAS, the County had existing LODA claims prior to June 30, 2012, and is therefore required to join the VACORP LODA Trust and to enter into a LODA Trust Agreement with VACORP regarding the coverage of those claims. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney, the LODA Trust Agreement between VACORP and the County of Albemarle. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of ______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________. Return to exec summary ATTACHMENT B 1 VACORP LODA TRUST The County of Albemarle, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“Grantor”), being authorized and directed to do so, does make this trust agreement dated April 3, 2013 with VACORP, a local government risk sharing pool, which is an instrument of the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as Trustee (“the Trustee”). The Trustee and any successor Trustees are all referred to herein as “the Trustee.” The name of this trust agreement is the “VACORP LODA TRUST dated April 3, 2013” (“Trust”) and is effective July 1, 2012. ARTICLE 1 TRUST PROVISIONS A. Transfer of Assets and Liabilities. Contemporaneously with the execution of this trust, Grantor (hereinafter “Member”) does transfer to the Trustee of the Trust all liabilities appertaining to any claim which they may have prior to July 1, 2012 under the Line of Duty Act pursuant to §9.1-400 et seq. of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (“Act”) and does promise to timely pay for said liabilities. B. Line of Duty Act Trust Fund. By entering into this Trust, the Member acknowledges that it has opted out of the Commonwealth of Virginia Line of Duty Act Trust Fund. C. Eligibility of Members. The Member shall purchase liability insurance from Trustee covering claims under the Act. Likewise the Member shall timely pay to the Trustee all premiums for said insurance and monies for claims prior to July 1, 2012. In the event a Member purchases insurance from other than the Trustee, the Trustee and this Trust shall have no liability or obligation to such Member. D. Administration of Claims. During the existence of this Trust, the Trustee shall administer all pre-July 1, 2012 claims of its members under this Trust, shall provide the administration of all claims and shall provide insurance to insure against claims under the Act to all Members as of July 1, 2012. E. Insurance & Payments by Members. The Member is obligated to purchase liability insurance for claims under the Act from the Trustee and pay the Trustee those payments for insurance and claims as provided for under the Act, which payments must be timely made. If a payment is overdue by thirty (30) days, or if an insurance premium payment is not made within thirty (30) days of the invoice date, then the Trustee shall not provi de claims administration, insurance or payment to claimants, until payments are brought current and all insurance coverage is purchased from the Trustee. ARTICLE II TRUSTEE PROVISIONS A. Trustee’s Management Powers. The Trustee shall have the powers granted by law and the powers in Sections 64.2-105, 64.2-777 and 64.2-778 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as ATTACHMENT B 2 amended, as in effect on the date of the signing of this agreement. These sections are incorporated in this agreement by this reference. B. Trustee’s Compensation. The Trustee, or any successor Trustee, shall receive compensation for services rendered. The corporate Trustee, or any successor corporate Trustee, shall receive compensation for services rendered according to their list of fees published from time to time. C. Resignation of Trustee. The Trustee may resign as Trustee by notice to the Members. The resignation shall take effect upon the effective appointment of a successor Trustee. D. Successor Trustee. The Trustee shall have the right to designate a successor Trustee who shall be any natural person or corporation having trust powers, which shall be effective upon the resignation or termination of corporate existence of the Trustee. Such designation shall be made while such Trustee is serving as Trustee by an instrument executed by the Trustee during and by the successor Trustee. In the event that the Trustee does not appoint a successor Trustee or a successor Trustee does not appoint its successor Trustee, which it shall have the privilege to do hereunder, the Members shall have the right to appoint a Trustee. E. Actions of Prior Trustee. No Trustee serving under this agreement shall be responsible for or required to inquire into any acts or omissions of a prior Trustee. ARTICLE III RIGHTS RESERVED BY MEMBERS A. Revocation and Amendment. The Member reserves the right to opt out of this Trust by a writing signed by the Member and delivered to the Trustee. All obligations of Member to the Trust shall be paid by Member prior to opting out. Any amendment that changes the duties or compensation of the Trustee shall require the consent of the Trustee. B. New Members. The Member agrees that new members as defined by the Act may become Members if the Trustee accepts them. ARTICLE IV MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Protection from Claims. To the extent permitted by law, the principal and income of any trust shall not be liable for the debts of any beneficiary or subject to alienation or anticipation by a beneficiary, except as otherwise provided. B. Governing Law. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of Virginia. C. Signatures. This trust may be executed in counterparts and electronically. ATTACHMENT B 3 WITNESS the following signatures and seals: The Trustee accepts the terms of the VACORP LODA TRUST dated April 3, 2013. VACORP By:______________________________ Administrator, Officer COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY/CITY OF ________________________, To-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of____________, 2013, by _______________________________, Trustee, ____________________ of VACORP, on behalf of VACORP, who is identified and known to me. _____________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires:________________ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By:_____________________________ Thomas C. Foley, County Executive COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY/CITY OF _______________________, To-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of __________, 2013, by Thomas C. Foley, County Executive, on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, who is identified and known to me. _____________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: _________________ Return to exec summary BELVEDERE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS VARIATION MAY 1, 2013 BOS 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA200400007 –Variations from Belvedere Code of Development SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. Section 8.5.5.3 Variations From Approved Plans, Codes, And Standards Of Developments STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Benish and Ms. Ray LEGAL REVIEW: No AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Belvedere development is located off of Rio Road, just west of Dunlora. Belvedere was rezoned to Neighborhood Model District, with an associated application plan and Code of Development, in October 2005 (ZMA2004 -00007). The applicant is requesting a variation from the approved Belvedere Code of Development. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs. Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community. DISCUSSION: The applicant would like to revise the Architectural Standards portion of the Code of Development (pages 17 -31). This proposal includes simplifying the requirements and architectural review process based on experience gained during the first five years of development build-out. Architectural standards are not being diminished and all proposed changes have been developed in accord with the Belvedere resident's ARB committee. The applicant has provided a redline document which illustrates all proposed additions to the Architectural Standards in blue text and all deletions in red text (see Attachment A). Section 8.5.5.3(a) authorizes the Director of Planning to grant variations from the approved application plat and/ or code of development. However, due to a recent State Suprem e Court decision, these variations must now be approved by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Section 33.5 Staff is recommending approval of this variation request (#52). VARIATION #52: The applicant submitted the following request: “To simplify the requirements and architectural review process following five years of neighborhood experience and lessons learned. Architectural standards are not being diminished; all proposed changes have been developed in accord with the Belvedere resident's ARB committee.” Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below: 1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. The design is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development. Density is not increased. 3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning district. The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected. 4) The variation does not require a special use permit. A special use permit is not required. 5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application. This variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application. BELVEDERE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS VARIATION MAY 1, 2013 BOS 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variation request #52 as described above, with the following conditions :  The Belvedere Code of Development must be updated to reflect t he proposed changes prior to approval of the Phase II Final Plat. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of variation #52 with conditions as recommended in this report . ATTACHMENTS: A. Belvedere Architectural Standards Redlines Document Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Belvedere Architectural Review Committee THE FOLLOWING IS COPIED FROM THE “ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS” DOCUMENT Architectural Standards Architectural Values The following are the guiding principles the Architectural Standards Committee (ASC) will use in conjunction with the builder/architect design team to develop the original built form of Belvedere. The primary function of this document is to establish the baseline for interpretation by the ASC. It is the expectation of the ASC that the eventual homeowner led committee will include more specific rules than this document prescribes as the Belvedere neighborhood evolves. Stonehaus, the developer of Belvedere, will be available long term to assist the ASC in managing their vision of the community. Diversity Belvedere will feature an emphasis on diversity in the following categories: o Roof Treatment and Orientation o Elevations o Materials o Colors o Edge Treatments o Landscaping o Massing Diversity Guidelines: 1. The distribution of lot sizes at Belvedere creates inherent diversity between building product. Specific diversity constraints of elevations and colors are not necessary, but homebuilders and residents are encouraged to view the street as a composition. 2. A variety of roofing materials are encouraged. Accent roof material is encouraged to be metal or slate. Pedestrian Oriented Neighborhood In order to encourage walkability throughout Belvedere, homes should artfully engage the street. The pedestrian zone will extend from front door to front door, creating a dynamic space that encourages social interaction and well-being. Pedestrian Orientation Guidelines: 1. Walkway material from the sidewalk to the front porch or other similar entranceway to the home, is encouraged to be diverse. Rhythm of Public/Private Spaces The street will be the strength of Belvedere. To foster a vital street complex it will be important to define the public spaces which are characterized by sidewalks from the semi-public defensible spaces, such as the home’s front yard and front porch. Methods for defining those spaces include: o A broad variety of edge treatments including retaining walls, cheek walls, hedges, fences, landscaping, and slope may accomplish this distinction. o A buffer space that protects the private space on the front of the house. o A “Cool Zone” that is most commonly defined by a front porch, but could be described by a patio or terrace. o A raised finished floor to delineate the private space within the house as separate from the public realm o Carefully crafted outdoor space in relation to floorplan on the side and/or back of the homes. Public/Private Space Guidelines: 1. Backyard privacy fences should no taller than 6’ and the finished side of the fence should face out. Massing in Relation to Lot/Block/Neighborhood We value the exterior spaces throughout the neighborhood in conjunction with the living spaces inside the homes. Homes must: o Address the corners, often with carriage units. o Possess diversity of roof structures and orientation o Address the public spaces o Be sited properly to ensure pleasant viewsheds are captured. An example may include locating the house at the terminus of a street so that it becomes a prominent landmark. Massing Guidelines: 1. There will be a minimum of 103 carriage house units in the community. Each carriage house will meet the requirements for a single family dwelling as defined in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Each Carriage House Unit shall conform to the Code of Development. They shall be on the same parcel as the primary dwelling unit to which it is an accessory. Carriage House Units may not be subdivided from the primary residence. The subdivision restriction shall be described on the plat creating such parcels and be incorporated into each deed conveying title to such parcels. a. All Carriage House Units must employ the same exterior color selections as the primary residence. Setback regulations for Carriage House Units shall be the same as those for garages b. Carriage House Units are separate, detached independent living units which are included with a single family detached unit and clearly subordinate to the primary residence. These units are typically located above a garage and are restricted to a maximum finished area of 800 square feet. These units may have a distinct street address and may be provided with separate utility meters if utilized as a rental unit. 2. Homes on corner lots should address the corner, preferably with a side entry to the porch or terrace. Side elevations for corner lots should be well-proportioned. Authenticity of Style The style of the homes will be determined by the homebuilders. However, it will be important to pay specific attention to the authenticity of the components of the chosen architectural styles. Specific areas for concern are the: o eave o cornice o material o color o differentiation of floors where appropriate o base, middle and top o Raised finished floor o Proportion o façade components o organization of elements o elements themselves trim dimensions, column dimensions, etc Authenticity Guidelines: 1. Architectural style should be supported by stylistically correct architectural detailing. 2. Material and color changes should occur at inside corners. They should not occur on outside corners or randomly on elevations. 3. Doghouse chimneys are allowed with a foundation. 4. Shutters are to be full-operational in appearance, including hinges and shutter-dogs. Vinyl shutters are not allowed. 5. Eave overhangs should match the style of the house. Sustainability Sustainability is defined by the quality of life in a place. A community is sustainable when the economic, social and environmental systems that make up that community are providing a healthy, productive, meaningful life for all residents, both present and future. The goals for Belvedere for Sustainability include: Utilization of Solar Orientation o Public buildings and amenities will be sited to achieve an appropriate balance between solar insulation and the uses of the buildings or amenities. Energy Efficiency o EarthCraft Certification Water Management & Conservation o Low flow fixtures o Rainwater roof catchments and storage, where possible o Utilizing stormwater for greywater systems, e.g. irrigation or toilet flushing. Durability o Durable exterior finish materials o High quality weather barrier and flashing details o Flexible interior layouts (structure and utility layouts) (adaptive reuse) Indoor Air Quality o Controlled Mechanical Ventilation o Low VOC finishes and adhesives o Flooring options to meet American Allergy Institute standards. Daylighting o Orientation of buildings, placement of glazings, and coordination of overhangs to allow natural daylighting of interior spaces. Sustainability Guidelines: 1. All homes must be built to EarthCraft standard. Architectural Review Protocol Homebuilders The ASC review process has been crafted to be collaborative. The ASC encourages dialogue with homebuilders to avoid difficulties at the Final Review stage. The steps to follow for each stage of the review process are: o Visioning – A presentation by the Belvedere ASC to the homebuilders to begin the dialogue of the built form. o Conceptual Review – Review by the ASC of Blockwide Sketches, elevations, and a site plan. o Schematic – Review by the ASC of floorplans and elevations. o Design Development – Workshops between the ASC and homebuilders are encouraged. The by-products from this stage will be the basis for the exhibits submitted at the Final Review stage. o Final Review – Homebuilders should submit the Final Review package to the ASC administrator. Package to include: 1. ASC Review Checklist 2. Detailed elevation drawings 3. Site Plan including elevations of finished floor and relationship to neighboring structures. 4. Landscape Plan including hard and softscape elements. 5. Color recommendations for the submitted product. 6. Material submittals are requested. o Final Inspection – The homebuilder should schedule a final inspection with the ASC administrator prior to any third-party closing. ASC Review Schedule: 1. Submittals by close of business Friday of each week. 2. If submittals are complete, review by ASC on the following Wednesday. 3. Approval or denial letter to be sent out by the following Friday. 4. Final Inspection – Scheduled with ASC administrator; compliance letter provided within 3 days. Residents The architectural review process for residents of the community should be limited to color changes and significant renovations. If there is a question about the applicability of an ASC review, please contact the ASC administrator. Depending on the nature of the renovations, the ASC administrator will supply the submittal requirements to the resident. Construction Protocol Homebuilders and Residents Due to the nature of the Belvedere community, construction activity will be closely monitored for sensitivity to the neighborhood. Specific requirements include: o Portable toilets should be provided by builders on site. o On-site materials should be delivered and stored only on site, or on an adjacent lot owned by the homebuilder. Materials should not be delivered and placed in open space or on lots not owned by homebuilders. o Trash should not accumulate on site. Dumpsters shall be located off of alleys when at all possible. o Each homebuilder is responsible for their workers and the workers of their subcontractors. o Construction hours are from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Construction can not begin on Sundays before 11:00 AM. o Contractors are responsible for keeping dust to a minimum. o Contractors are responsible for controlling drainage. o Construction trailers should be applied for from the ASC Administrator. o Parking should be on-site or on-street and not interfere with U.S. Mail delivery. Parking is not allowed in open space. o Any and all damage is the responsibility of the homebuilder. o Concrete suppliers and contractors are not allowed to clean equipment in common areas, streets or vacant sites. o Use of neighboring hose bibs is prohibited. THE FOLLOWING IS COPIED FROM THE “CODE OF DEVELOPMENT” DOCUMENT 3. THE BUILT FORM OF BELVEDERE PHILOSOPHY Successful neighborhoods and communities are not random, unplanned events. In the past, relatively simple planning and controls over time have produced places of such charm and warmth that they have a place in this nation’s collective subconscious. This memory and those places that survive today have in many ways set the standard for what our new neighborhoods and communities should be. The difficulty lies in creating in a few years what in the past took several decades. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS a. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE A broad range of historic and contemporary American architectural styles (listed below) can be used as “points-of –departure” for designs at the community of Belvedere. These styles are compatible because they share similar proportions, details, massing, materials, and roof form. The buildings approved for the Community of Belvedere must exhibit compatibility with these elements however unique interpretations of the historic style are allowed and encouraged. This could mean that the design expression becomes simpler without looking cheap, the details may become simpler but not smaller, or the arrangement of elements may vary slightly from traditional norms. There should not be so much variation as to be no longer compatible with a more traditional interpretation. The Architectural Standards Committee (“ASC”) will provide early input to the applicants as to the appropriateness of design and enforce the standards of this code and the Declaration. The Architectural Standards for Belvedere will be approved by the ASC prior to submission to the County to ensure compliance with the Code of Development. The ASC will review all individual submissions prior to review by the county. ACCEPTED TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLES Remove any reference to specific architectural styles – diversity is not limiting · COLONIAL REVIVAL · GREEK REVIVAL · SHINGLE · GEORGIAN AND ADAM · BUNGALOW · ARTS AND CRAFTS · CONTEMPORARY o Restricted to lots with frontage of 50 feet or greater. GENERAL STYLE, FORM, MASSING AND PROPORTION OF STRUCTURES · The main mass of the building shall have all the ground floors on the same level. Split-level designs are not permitted without ASC approval. · A predominately two-story street elevation is encouraged with a minimum of 50% of homes being two story. · Similar building elevations shall be separated to minimize the awareness of repetitive floor plans and elevations. For single family detached homes an identical house front elevation may not be repeated more than once in any grouping of 6 or fewer adjacent lots sharing frontage on a common street. An identical plan may not be constructed on lots that face each other across a roadway other than an Alley · All front facing gables shall have attic windows. · Entry porches or stoops must provide cover by having a cantilevered, bracketed or column supported roof, a recessed entry door, or a combination of both. · 9’ minimum ceiling heights at the first level are required. · 50% of the detached homes shall have front porches with a minimum depth of 7 feet and a minimum width of 15 feet. Lots requiring such porches will be determined by the ASC. · Foundations shall be crawl spaces or partial or full basements. Flat or elevated slabs will be considered if grading can be accommodated with a minimal impact to existing vegetation. MATERIALS, COLOR AND TEXTURE · All exterior paint colors shall be selected from the Belvedere Paint Schedule. – suggest “James Hardie Siding Products – colors” · Walls shall be no more than one color per material used. · Brick color, range and texture shall be based on the brick choices provided in the Belvedere Materials Schedule · Stone (cultured or natural) color and style shall be based on the stone choices provided in the Belvedere Materials Schedule · Board and Batten accents using cementitious panels need a batten spacing of no greater than 18” using 5/4”x 3” minimum batten strips. · Roof Shingles style and color shall be selected from the Belvedere Materials Schedule. Other shingle styles and colors will be considered by the ASC. · Accent color brick may be used if approved by the ASC. · Accent wall patterns of vertical board and batten, trimmed panels and/or shingles will may be limited to gables, window bays or other secondary elements or surfaces at the side or alley elevations. The materials for these patterns may be wood or cementious fiber material. · Precast or cast stone elements may be used if approved by the ASC. · Building wall at the streets shall be finished in modular brick, cultured stone, horizontal lap siding (4” or 6” to show), stucco or shingle siding · Siding may be wood , cementious fiber material, or vinyl. Accent wall patterns of vertical board and batten, trimmed panels and/or shingles will be limited to gables, window bays or other secondary elements or surfaces at the side or alley elevations. The materials for these patterns may be wood or cementious fiber material. Other materials may be considered. · No more than 30% of the homes on any street may incorporate vinyl siding. All vinyl siding shall be selected from the Belvedere Materials Schedule. Each builder within the community shall be allocated a 30% allowance for vinyl sided units. These allotments are non-transferable and may NOT be used on adjacent lots. Vinyl will not be allowed on any corner lot. Vinyl will not be allowed on any lot fronting the Village Green · Exposed foundations shall be brick, painted concrete, brick embossed or parged. · The building walls veneered in brick should be simple in form and massing. Avoid brick extending over portions of roof. · Foundations should shall be exposed a minimum of 24” at the street sides for homes with a 10 foot setback or less. A flush slab on grade condition can occur at the alley and side yards or on lots with front yard setbacks of 25 feet or more. Final home sighting · Siding shall be at 4”, 6” or 8” to weather. · Brick shall be modular in size with brown sand mortar. · A water table detail is required at the street elevation. · All exterior colors and materials will be approved by the ASC. · Wood and cementitous siding will be painted in accordance with an approved color scheme prepared by the applicant. Refer to the appendix for general standards on color. No adjacent homes may use the same color scheme ROOF PITCH AND FORM · Roof forms should be simple and based on the Architectural style selected. · Principal roofs will range from 4:12 to 12:12 based on the selected Architectural style · Secondary roofs can be a lower pitch, with a minimum of a 2:12 slope. · Main roof sections shall have the same pitch. · Dormer design shall be consistent with the selected Architectural style. · Fascia, soffit and frieze make up the roof to wall design with a full pediment or a cornice return at the gable ends unless otherwise approved due to architectural style. · Gable attic windows of various shapes often enhance the design along with a full pediment gable · Rake overhangs should be at least 12” between 6” and 12” on all elevations. · Front Roof overhangs should be a minimum of 12” · The design of the soffit and frieze detail should be given special attention. The Frieze design should be consistent with the architectural style of the building. · The frieze detail at the street shall continue uninterrupted around the building unless otherwise determined by the ASC. · Main roofs shall be a 25 year or better “Architectural” dimensional asphalt shingle, a natural slate, standing seam metal or a simulated slate or flat tile wood shingle or shake. · Ridge vents shall be a rigid plastic designed to receive shingles. Additional roof venting required shall be achieved with gable vents or square through roof vents painted to match roof color and located away from the street view. · Gutters and down spouts where needed shall be typical ogee profile or half round in metal or vinyl. · Gutters/downspouts should be connected to storm drainage where possible. Gutters/downspouts should be connected to under-ground collection systems and piped to daylight so as to minimize impact to neighboring lots. · Flat roofs shall have a parapet or railing. · Roof penetrations shall be placed away from view from the street and placed low on the roof. Paint to match the roof color. · Skylights shall be flat panel and placed out of primary view from the street · Solar panels located on a roof shall be placed within 10 deg. of flush with the roof and outside of primary view of the street. ARCHITECTURAL ORNAMENTATION · Columns shall be round or square and a minimum of 8” in diameter and made of either wood or fiberglass unless otherwise approved by the ASC · Railings shall be painted or pre-finished metal or wood. Wood railing visible from the street and under cover shall be finish grade primed and painted with a turned top rail and based rail. · Foundation vents shall be set into the masonry wall and made of plastic or metal. · Home address numbers shall be (select a desired font/style) selected from the styles shown in the Belvedere color and material palette and located in a prominent and well-designed location. · No wood front steps will be allowed. Brick steps are encouraged to use shaped brick tread brick. FAÇADE TREATMENT · The Belvedere ASC will provide a list of acceptable window manufacturers. · Windows may be a Wood, Vinyl, or Clad Wood product. They may be pre-finished or field painted. · Window operating styles may be Double or Single Hung or Casement · Double hung operable windows with true or simulated divided panes are preferred. · Windows with between the glass or interior applied grills are only permitted with ASC approval. · Full light windows will be reviewed by the ASC on a case-by-case basis. · For all Residential Structures: Large fixed windows can occur only in combination with operable windows. Small fixed accent windows are accepted. · Main doors may be made of Wood or Fiberglass. Fiberglass doors should have a wood-like texture. · Garage doors may be made of Wood, Fiberglass, or Metal. · For all Residential Structures: Double hung windows shall have the proportions of a vertical rectangle in the range of 3:1 to 1.5:1 height to width. · Windows may be configured in the building wall singularly or in horizontal groups. · In two story building walls, windows should be stacked or otherwise arranged in a regular and symmetrical pattern. · Doors should be arranged with windows in the building wall, usually by stacking a window above the door. · Garage doors occur at the alley side, or to the side street at an end unit. When the garage is facing a street it should be recessed 18” from the face of the building wall. · Entry doors should have sidelights and/or transoms. · Arched and curved transoms could be considered at the entry door. · The style of the garage door should be consistent with the Architectural character. · Glazing in the garage door is encouraged. · Window trim is critical to the success of the elevation. A minimum of a 5/4” x 4” trim is required. Window sills shall be required except where authentic architectural interpretation requires something less · The windows and doors in a brick wall condition shall be trimmed with a brick mold or 5/4”x material at the jamb and head. · Brick, cast stone, or stone lintels are required unless the frieze covers this condition. · Brick, cast stone, or stone sills are required in stone or brick walls. · Door trim can be flat or ribbed with a base block. · Doorbells are to be mounted centered in jamb trim. · A water table detail is required at the street elevation. · Corner trim shall be 5/4” x 6”minimum wood grade B or cementious fiber material. · Nails and screws, if exposed, shall be stainless steel or equivalent. · Careful attention should be paid to the flashing to allow it to blend with the surrounding materials. · Exterior doors shall be hinged. · Shutter size shall be proportional to the window opening, either full size or one half size. Shutter style can be louvered or solid. · Shutters must be operable or appear to be by using shutter dogs and blocking behind the inside edge to create separation between the wall and the back of the shutter. · Shutters must be solid material equal in design and dimension to a wood product. · Gable vents may be wood or fiberglass, and in an appropriate size and style for the Architectural Style. · Entry Stoops and their steps must be of brick construction and tie into the exposed brick foundation. Where foundations are stucco finish, stoops and steps may be finished to match. · Front porches shall be of wood, concrete or brick construction. Concrete infill is permitted. · Side porches may be of wood or brick construction with wood or brick steps · Screen porches shall have supports that divide screening into vertical rectangles. · In brick porch construction the skirt and steps are an extension of the foundation wall. A lightly textured concrete surface is acceptable. Colored concrete or paint is recommended for surface treatment. Stone, tile or brick pavers are also encouraged. · Porch ceilings shall be plasterboard, beaded planks, or beaded plywood. · Chimneys that occur on the exterior wall at the street side must be veneered in brick or stone. Chimneys that occur in the roof facing the street must be well detailed and will be considered by the ASC on a case-by-case basis. · Exposed concrete block foundation walls are not allowed. Parged or painted concrete is allowed. Concrete foundation walls on side or rear should have brick embossed pattern if the front foundation wall is brick. COLONIAL REVIVAL- Based on the Houses of the Colonial Period, this style is predominately a two-story side gable or gambrel rectangular volume. First and second level windows and doors are typically stacked, but there is more flexibility in the pattern than with the Georgian and Adam style. Windows are often doubled and change patterns between the first and second level. Roof dormers are a common element. Symmetry is important but not a rule. EXTERIOR FAÇADE Configuration · Colonial Revival houses are simple rectangular side gabled or hipped two story facades. · Massing can be symmetrical or asymmetrical. · The entrance should be centered on the front facade if all other elements are symmetrical. · Windows are stacked and typically symmetrical around a central entry door. · Roof dormers and gable dormers are often an added element. · Chimneys are typically located at the ridge and when at the gable, break the pediment and project from the wall. · The cornice and entry door surround are elaborately detailed. Simpler details of similar size are acceptable. · A water table course and a second floor level detail band are common with brick veneer. ROOFS Configuration · There are many derivations of the Colonial Revival style; many roof forms may be applied. · A simple gabled main roof is the most common with a pitch between 7:12 and 12:12. · Hipped roofs are also common and are generally of a lower pitch. · Dormers in this style may vary greatly in size and detail. · Dormers are common. They should be small gabled, hipped, or bowed. · Dormers may be used across the roof centered above or between windows. ENTRIES AND PORCHES Configuration · Small entry porches and full width front porches are common. · Supports are substantial and are spaced a distance apart equal to or just less than their height. · Porches have highly detailed entry surrounds. · Commonly pilasters are topped with entablatures, pediments, or broken pediments. · Sidelights and transoms typically accompany the paneled entry door. · Small entry porticos typically have lower pitched or flat roofs that may have a railing and act as a deck to the second floor. · The entry door is typically flush; however recessing the door provides a sheltered area. WINDOWS AND DOORS Configuration · The windows that exemplify these styles are single or paired double-hung with equal spaces between one another. · For all Residential Structures: windows should be proportioned at least 1:2 (width to height). · Placement from the corner of the house should be at least the width of one window. · First and second floor windows shall be stacked · Accent windows may appear centered on the peak of a pediment over a balcony, portico, or entry. · For all Residential Structures: large fixed (“picture”) windows are allowed in combination with tall narrow operable windows to either side. · Bay and bow windows are popular accents. · Shutters are common in this style. · The front door may be off balanced if it is centered below a second story window. MISCELLANEOUS · Cornice trim to be exaggerated by use of a frieze board to make the transition from the roof to the wall plane, may be decorated with dental or other type of molding. · Other decorative elaborations are dealt with in other sections of the text. · Wood pilasters may be located at corners vs. Corner board. · Wood trim at window and door heads to be a wider dimension than the sill and jamb trim. · Two piece trim or more elaborate trim at the head jamb is encouraged at elevations that are prominent from the street. GREEK REVIVAL - This style is characterized by a simple two-story rectangle with a gabled or hipped low pitch roof with a heavy cornice line. Typically the entries are symmetrically located and have covered porches. The entry doors have sidelights and transoms. Windows are usually single elements stacked above each other. EXTERIOR FACADES Configuration · The basic form is a two story rectangular box with either a smaller one and two story boxes may be added at the rear or sides. The garage can be one of these added boxes to the side or rear. · This style is characterized by a simple two-story rectangle with a gabled or hipped low pitch roof with a heavy cornice line. · The front gable with a cross gable is also common. · Entries are typically symmetrically located and have covered porches. · Chimneys can be located on the exterior or interior to the house but are not a dominant element. · Corner trim can be enlarged to appear as a pilaster. ROOFS Configuration · Shallow gable or a hipped roof ranging between a 5:12 and 7:12 pitch. · Dormers in these styles are very common. · Dormer roofs can be gabled, hipped, or bowed. · Dormers can include fixed or double hung windows, and in the case of a broken pediment the window may be arched. ENTRIES AND PORCHES Configuration · Entrance doors have sidelights on both sides and the full transom or a broken transom above. · Full width front porches are possible on one-story side gables. · On two story facades, a one story flat or low-pitched roof covers the porch. · Supports are substantial and are spaced a distance apart equal to or just less than their height. · The entry doors have sidelights and transoms. · Small entry porticos typically have flat roofs that may have a railing and can act as a deck to the second floor. · The foundations at the entrance porches will be solid masonry walls or solid piers below columns with lattice in-fill of masonry or wood trim. · Door assembly can be incorporated into an elaborate trim surround. · Use square or round columns at entry porches proportioned with the building. WINDOWS AND DOORS Configuration · The windows that exemplify these styles are double hung and singularly placed at equal intervals between one another. · They should be proportioned at least 1:2 (width to height). · Placement from the corner of the house should be at least the width of one window. · For visual clarity second story windows should be centered on the windows below and should share the same width as the windows below. · Small round or square windows may appear centered on the peak of a pediment over a balcony, portico, or entry. · A fairly strict pattern of “five windows over four and a door” is followed. · Windows may appear more irregularly placed on secondary volumes and side elevations. · Shutters are common in this style. GEORGIAN AND ADAM - Popular styles in this part of the country both past and present. One story versions and gambrel subtype, but the most common example is a two story rectangular mass with a side facing gable. The entries have elaborate crowns and pilasters, and typically a single row of transom glass. In the Georgian style the transom is flat while the Adams style is characterized by a bow or arch. Windows occur singularly, they are double hung, and have nine to twelve panes per sash. Decorative moldings typically emphasize the cornice. The Adams style allows a more elaborate entry, which includes a special window design above the entry door at the second floor. EXTERIOR FACADE Configuration Georgian and Adams houses are simple rectangular side gabled or hipped two story facades. Windows are stacked and typically symmetrical around a central entry door. Roof dormers are often an added element. Chimneys are typically located at the ridge and when at the gable, do not break the pediment. The cornice and entry door surround are elaborately detailed. Simpler details of similar size are acceptable A water table course and a second floor level detail band are common with brick veneer. ENTRIES AND PORCHES Configuration Small entry porches are common. Both these styles have highly detailed entry surrounds. Commonly pilasters are topped with entablatures, pediments, or broken pediments. Sidelights and transoms typically accompany the paneled entry door. Arched or elliptical transoms are a distinctive feature of the Adam style. The entry door is typically flush, however recessing the door provides a sheltered area. Porticos are common in the Adam style. WINDOWS AND DOORS Configuration The windows that exemplify these styles are double hung and singularly placed at equal intervals between one another. They should be proportioned at least 1:2 (width to height). Placement from the corner of the house should be at least the width of one window. First and second floor windows shall be stacked Accent windows may appear centered on the peak of a pediment over a balcony, portico, or entry. The Adam style differentiates itself by its’ arched entry transom and a unique window above the entry. Shutters are common in this style. Fences and Walls: The Master Plan for Belvedere works to develop a strong sense of community. Accordingly fencing must be planned and constructed in a manner that enhances this sense of community. General Regulations: · All fences must be approved prior to installation by the ASC. · The finished side of fences must always face out from the lot · Both sides of all fences must be painted or stained · Chain link fencing is not allowed · The preferred material for free-standing walls is brick with a minimum width of 8” and capped with a minimum overhang of 1” For Brick walls the brick used in freestanding walls shall match the brick used in the primary residence. · Retaining walls visible from the street shall be fronted with brick, stacked field stone or other material matching main house foundation. Retaining walls not visible from the street may be constructed of smooth finished concrete, architectural block or pressure treated wood. · Privacy fences are restricted to side and rear yards and may not exceed 8’ 6’ in height. Fences are required: · On a side yard adjoining a neighborhood park, or public right of way a fence is required along the lot property line to provide definition of public spaces (lots separated from the park by a street or alley shall be exempt from this requirement). · To screen trash receptacles and air conditioner compressors from public view one of the following must be constructed o an approved fence of adequate height, o suitable wall enclosure o landscape screening · Along the Right hand (As viewed from the primary street frontage) of the lot from the rear corner of the primary residence to a point 5’ from the rear property line a solid privacy fence of at least 6’ must be constructed. Lots with frontage greater than 60’ may be exempted from this requirement on a case by case basis. Fences are permitted: · In front yards a lot a 3’ picket fence is permitted along the entire length of the lot line. Whenever possible the fence should tie back into the front corner of the primary residence. Gates or other openings are permitted for the front walk. The post at the end of the fence shall be decorative and not less 6” x 6” with a decorative cap. Walls of the same height, compatible with the masonry material of the house, or an evergreen hedge are also acceptable for this use. Pools and Fountains: The ASC will review all proposed pools on an individual basis. Pool and equipment enclosures must relate architecturally to the primary residence and other structures in their placement, materials and architectural detailing. NO above ground pools or inflatable bubble covers will be permitted. Site Lighting: All proposed site and landscape lighting shall be detailed on the Site and Landscape Plans. Lighting shall be subtle in nature. No exterior lighting shall be permitted when in the opinion of the ASC, it would create a nuisance to the adjoining property owners or the community at large. Gutters and downspouts: Gutters and downspouts shall be designed to be compatible with the roof, fascia and architectural design of the house. b. LANDSCAPE AND STREETSCAPE STANDARDS The general theme and focus of the landscape treatment throughout the project will be to encourage the use of plant materials that are less reliant on the use of irrigation, fertilizers and pesticides. Street trees will be installed for all streets, boulevards and roundabouts as listed on the Road Standards (Table 8) subject to utility placement, easements, buildings and sight distance requirements. Plantings for the parkway and shoulder boulevard classifications may be more informal and arranged in more natural shade and ornamental tree plantings. Streetscape development for non-residential areas will be more urban in nature and the guiding principles will be indicated in the following section. The purpose of the Landscaping Standards is to: 1. Promote compatible and continuous landscape treatment throughout the Belvedere community. The intent is to integrate the lots into the larger community and bridge the gap between public and private spaces. 2. Promote the quality image of the community. Successful landscaping design provides screening, enhances the architecture of the community, and sets a standard for high quality development. 3. Ensure that the plant material proposed is compatible with the environmental conditions in Albemarle County and is suitable for creating an aesthetically pleasing year-round environment. 4. The Belvedere Architectural Standards Committee shall be solely responsible for enforcement of all landscaping standards contained herein. The Belvedere Landscape Palette Landscaping All landscape materials and plantings must be approved by the ASC and should adhere to the following design principles. Only plant material from the proposed Belvedere Landscape Palette may be used in rights-of-ways, front setback zones, open spaces, and back or side yards of lots adjoining public open spaces. Plants of similar characteristics may be added to the list upon approval by the ASC. The Landscape Pallette shall be developed by the Owner working in conjunction with a landscape architect and the ASC prior to approval of the Final Site plan for Phase I. The Natural Planting Approach: Plant materials should complement the native vegetation and be compatible with the ecological and climatic conditions in Albemarle County. Views can be improved without extensive clearing of the native flora. The cutting of the forest understory to open up views is permissible but should be kept to a minimum and must be done within the constraints of all established conservation buffers noted on the plat. Landscaping efforts should concentrate planting efforts adjacent to the house, especially near the entry. Ornamental plants, if used correctly, provide a transition from the natural character of the site to more finished areas closer to the house. For maximum appeal, mix textures and colors but keep the plan simple. A better effect can be achieved from using quantities of a few species rather than a few plants each of many species. The planting plan itself shall sufficiently screen utility areas, break up the foundation of the building, buffer driveway and parking areas adjacent to property lines, and provide cover for areas disturbed during construction. Foundation plantings shall screen foundations or spaces under decks. Lawns Sod is required in the front yard of all houses and between the curb and the sidewalk, and is to be wrapped around the side yards for a minimum of 10 ft. Sod should meet the side property lines as closely as possible to ensure a smooth transition from one lot to another. Beds for existing trees can break the sod along the property line. Any beds for hedges buffers, or shrub masses meeting the property line must be approved by the ASC which will take into account the consideration the landscaping on the adjoining lot. Corner lots are considered to have two front yards. Sod is required along the side street from the curb to sidewalk and from the sidewalk to the build-to line. The area between the curb and the back of sidewalks and between the alley pavement and the rear property line are considered part of the owner’s lot for purposes of maintenance of lawn areas. Street Trees: Street trees with a minimum caliper of 2 ½” 1 foot above the ground are to be planted on both sides of all streets and lanes in the right-of-way, with a spacing no greater than 50 feet on center throughout the neighborhoods. Generally these trees will be planted by the applicant once street and house construction is completed on a given block. The timing of tree planting will be coordinated to coincide with the growing season. Tree Planting On Private Residential Lots On any lot with more than 40’ of frontage, there shall be at least one tree, selected from the Belvedere Landscape Palette, of at least 2 ½” planted in the front yard of each lot. An additional tree of at least 1 ½” will required in the front yard for each 25 feet of lot frontage (or fraction thereof) after the initial 50 feet of lot frontage. Tree planted to satisfy this requirement should be located to complement the street tree plantings. If a significant number of quality trees are retained in the front of the lot then this requirement may be reduced or waived. Minimum Planting Requirements: A minimum plant quantity chart is provided below to assist the owner/builder in developing landscape plans. These quantities are minimums for the front of houses, additional plants beyond these numbers are encouraged. TABLE 7 MINIMUM PLANTING REQUIREMENTS Lot Width Deciduous Trees Evergreen Tree Shrubs 60-100’ 3 3 30 50’-60’2 1 20 40’-49’ 1 1 15 30’39’ 1 10 < 30’ 1 5 All disturbed areas must be re-vegetated with sod, grass, groundcover, or shrub masses. Homes with plant strips between the houses and the driveway are required to plant groundcover selected from the Belvedere Landscape Palette. Minimum Plant Sizes at Time of Installation: Tree Size Deciduous 2 ½” caliper (well branched) Evergreen 6’ height (full) Shrubs 3 gallon container Landscape Specifications: The following specifications are the minimum standards that are acceptable for the installation of plant material in the residential neighborhoods: 1. The contractor shall be responsible for site inspection prior to landscape construction and installation in order to acquaint himself with the existing conditions. The Contractor shall be responsible for locating all existing underground utilities prior to beginning construction. Any planting conflict arising from existing utility locations shall be brought to the attention of the Owner. 2. The Contractor shall be responsible for providing positive drainage at 2% minimum in all planted areas. 3. The Contractor shall verify plant count from the plan, and shall provide and install all plant materials shown on the approved plan. The plant schedule provided is for the Contractor’s reference only; quantities shall be verified from the approved plan. 4. The Contractor shall guarantee all plant materials for 1 year from the date of planting. 5. The Owner or his designated agent shall approve any changes in plant material. 6. All plant material shall be balled and burlapped or container grown and shall be well formed, vigorous, growing specimens with growth typical of the variety specified and free from injurious insects and diseases. 7. All trees and shrubs shall be installed as indicated on the approved landscape plan. 8. All plants and beds shall be mulched with a 3 inch layer of mulch SEMINOLE TRAIL FIRE STATION WAIVERS MAY 1, 2013 BOS 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station – Zoning Ordinance Waivers SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. Section 4.2 Critical Slopes 2. Section 21.7(c) Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Benish, Ms. Ray, and Ms. Roberge LEGAL REVIEW: No AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department is located at 3055 Berkmar Drive, approximately 850 feet south of the intersection with Rio Road [631]. It was built in 1980 and has served the Seminole Trail area of the County since that time. This application is a r equest for approval of a major site plan amendment to build a 10,500 sf addition to the fire station, including two additional bays. It includes the building addition, which will replace a portion of site parking, and access reconfiguration to separate emergency and non-emergency traffic. The applicant is requesting two special exceptions: one for disturbance of small areas of man-made critical slopes, and one for disturbance of the buffer zone adjacent to residential districts. Staff is recommending approval of both waiver requests. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs. Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community. DISCUSSION: 1. CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER The proposed development will require the disturbance of critical slopes . A modification to allow critical slopes disturbance is necessary before the site plan can be approved by staff. The applicant has submitted a request and justification for the waiver, and this request has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.1(a) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the building site, and thus any improvements and earth-disturbing activity, be free from critical slopes. Section 4.2.5(b) allows the Agent to waive this restriction when the slopes were created through development pursuant to an approved Site Plan . However, the waiver must now be approved by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Sections 4.2.1(b) and 33.5. The critical slopes in the area of this request appear to be man-made and created pursuant to the original approved site plan for this parcel. Staff is recommending approval of this waiver request. This recommendation for approval is based on staff’s assessment which finds that the proposed disturbance substantially meets the requirements listed in Section 4.2.5(b): Review of the request by Engineering staff: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slopes proposed as being disturbed are man-made slopes of 2:1 that were created when the fire station was constructed. There are three critical slope areas on site; the first critical slope is al ong Berkmar Drive, the second is located in between the fire station and parking lot, and the third is behind the fire station. The applicant requests to dist urb these critical slopes for a proposed building addition, for an access to separate the emergenc y and non-emergency traffic, and for a proposed mechanical pad. SEMINOLE TRAIL FIRE STATION WAIVERS MAY 1, 2013 BOS 2 Areas Acres Total site 1.785 acres approximately Critical slopes 0.18 acres 10% of site Critical slopes disturbed .08 acres 44% of critical slopes Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18-4.2: “movement of soil and rock” The site will require proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization to prevent any movement of soil. The elevation of the existing building is much lower than the existing parking lot. The pro posed building addition will cut into the existing topography and retaining walls will be required in between the parking lot and the building addition. “excessive stormwater runoff” The critical slope runoff located along Berkmar Drive is currently draining into a culvert under the existing entrance road and routed to a vegetative area south of the fire station. The disturbance of this critical slope and the additional impervious entrance road will increase the runoff. The proposed building addition will also increase the runoff. A stormwater management analysis will determine if the size of the existing culvert needs to be increased and if erosion control measures are warranted in the vegetative area. “siltation” Inspection and bonding by the County wi ll ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. “loss of aesthetic resource” The critical slopes on site are manmade and were approved on a site plan for the existing fire station. “septic effluent” The proposed site will not release any septic effluent to the surrounding environment. The site is serviced by public sewer. The critical slope along Berkmar Drive is exempt from the critical slopes waiver due to no reasonable alternativ e locations for an additional entrance. The critical slope in between the fire station and the parking lot are also exempt provided that retaining walls are designed for areas with an elevation difference of 6’ or greater. The critical slope behind the Fir e Station will have minimal disturbance for a mechanical pad. I recommend approval of the disturbance of these manmade critical slopes. Review of the request by Planning staff: The agent may grant a waiver if he or she finds that: 1. The property is not identified in the open space plan as one having any protected resources and a field inspection has confirmed that there are no significant or critical features on the property identified for protection in the open space plan; 2. There is no reasonable alternative that would eliminate or reduce the disturbance of critical slopes; 3. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the program authority of an erosion and sediment control plan, regardless of whether the area disturbed is less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet; and 4. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the county engineer of a plan that describes how the movement of soil and rock, stormwater runoff, siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water, the loss of aesthetic resources identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan and, in the event of the failure of a treatment works and subsurface drainfield, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, will be mitigated through design, construction techniques, revegetation, stormwater management and other best management practices. Based on the County Engineer’s comments, staff finds that this request meets the criteria note d above. These slopes are not identified on the Open Space Plan and most are man-made. There are no concerns that would cause staff to object to the approval of the proposed critical slope disturbance request. Staff is recommending approval of this critical slope waiver request. 2. BUFFER ZONE WAIVER The proposed development will require the disturbance of the buffer zone. A modification to allow this buffer zone disturbance is necessary before the site plan can be approved by staff. The applicant has submitted a request and SEMINOLE TRAIL FIRE STATION WAIVERS MAY 1, 2013 BOS 3 justification for the waiver, and this request has been reviewed against the buffer zone regulations. Section 21.7(c) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that no construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district and that screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. Section 21.7(c)1 allows the commission to waive this prohibition as follows: The commission may waive the prohibition of construction activity, grading or the clearing of ve getation in the buffer in a particular case where the developer or subdivider demonstrates that grading or clearing is necessary or would result in an improved site design, provided that: (i) minimum screening requirements are met and (ii) existing landsca ping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially restored. However, the waiver must now be approved by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Section 33.5. Description of proposed buffer disturbance: The site currently has a portion of existing parking lot and a dumpster pad within this buffer zone. The waiver request includes the following items:  Disturbance of the 20’ buffer zone at the back of the parking lot in close proximity to the location of the new ADA compliant parking spaces. The extent of the disturbance would be removal of the existing 10’ x 10’ concrete dumpster pad and a portion of the parking lot within the buffer area, as well as the subsequent minor grading and seeding to repair the depression in this area from their removal.  A small corner section (approx. 12 square feet) of new concrete sidewalk that extends into the 20’ buffer zone at the location where the ADA compliant parking spaces connect to this sidewalk. This allows users of the ADA parking spaces direct access to a sidewalk route into the building.  Existing fencing and screening vegetation are present within the buffer area, but supplementary plantings are also proposed to provide additional screening and to enhance the site. Staff finds that the disturbance within the buffer will result in an improved site design, and supplemental landscaping will be provided to enhance the buffer area. Based on the review above, there are no concerns that would cause staff to object to the approval of the proposed buffer zone disturbance request. Staff is recommending approval of this buffer zone waiver request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver and the buffer zone waiver. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN ALTERNATE TO ACT FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ON THE BLUE RIDGE JUVENILE DETENTION COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna and Green (“Participating Jurisdictions”) established the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission (“Commission”) in 1998 by a Concurrent Resolution of the governing bodies; and WHEREAS, the Concurrent Resolution established the powers and responsibilities of the Commission and the respective rights and obligations of the Participating Jurisdictions for the Commission; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2 of the Concurrent Resolution, one Commission member from each Participating Jurisdiction is the Participating Jurisdiction’s current county administrator, county executive or city manager or their alternates designated as permitted by state law; and WHEREAS, after consultation with the Chief Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court, the Board wishes to designate the Assistant County Executive for Community Services to act as the alternate for the County Executive to attend Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission meetings and vote in place of the County Executive in his absence; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that approval of an alternate for the County Executive will improve and facilitate the efficient operations of the County Executive’s Office and the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the designation of the Assistant County Executive for Community Services as the alternate to attend and vote in place of the County Executive at Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission meetings when the County Executive is absent from such meetings. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of ______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 MEMORANDUM To: Board of Supervisors From: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary to Planning Commission Date: May 1, 2013 Re: Planning Commission Annual Report Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia says that, among its duties, the Planning Commission shall, “5. Make . . . an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the commission and the status of planning within its jurisdiction.” Attached you will find a report summarizing the activities of the commission in 2012 accepted by the Planning Commission at its April 2, 2013 meeting. Hopefully you will find this information of interest and I am more than happy to answer any particular questions you might have. View Report Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda 2012 ANNUAL REPORT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia stipulates that the local Planning Commission shall “make . . . an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the status of planning within the jurisdiction”. This report is a brief summary of the Albemarle County Planning Commission’s membership and activity during 2012. COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP COMMISSIONER DISTRICT SERVED Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice-Chair Jack Jouett 1/10 - 12/31/12 Don Franco Rio 3/4/09 - 12/31/12 Cal Morris, Chair Rivanna 1/04 - 12/31/12 Ed Smith Samuel Miller 1/10 - 12/31/12 Rick Randolph Scottsville 1/12 - 12/31/12 Thomas Loach White Hall 1/08 - 12/31/12 Bruce Dotson At-Large 1/12 - 12/31/12 Julia Monteith University of Va. (Non-voting) 1/06 - 12/31/1 2012 MEETING AGENDA SUMMARY # Meetings = ___32___ PUBLIC HEARINGS/REGULAR ITEMS # Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred Comp Plan Amendment (Includes 5 Year Review and Master Plans) (CPA) - - - - Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) 9 7 - 2 Subdivision Text Amendment (STA) 1 1 - - Comp Plan Compliance Review (CCP) 1 1 - - Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) 8 7 - 1 Special Use Permit (SP) 42 34 1 7 Preliminary Site Plan (SDP) 3 2 - 1 Final Site Plan (SDP) 4 1 2 1 Preliminary Sub Plat (SUB) 1 1 - - Final Sub Plat (SUB) - - - - Site Plan Amendment (SDP) - - - - Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 1 - 1 - Subdivision Waiver (SUB) - - - - Agricultural/Forestal District (AFD) 7 7 - - CONSENT AGENDA Preliminary Site Plan (SDP) - - N/A N/A Final Site Plan (SDP) - - N/A N/A Preliminary Sub Plat (SUB) 1 1 N/A N/A Final Sub Plat (SUB) - - N/A N/A Site Plan Amendment (SDP) - - N/A N/A Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 2 2 N/A N/A Subdivision Waiver (SUB) - - N/A N/A Agricultural/Forestal District (AFD) - - N/A N/A PC Minutes 34 34 N/A N/A Other 6 6 N/A N/A WORK SESSION Comp Plan Amendment (Includes 5 Year Review and Master Plans) (CPA) 20 N/A N/A N/A Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) 5 N/A N/A N/A Subdivision Text Amendment (STA) - N/A N/A N/A Comp Plan Compliance Review (CCP) - N/A N/A N/A Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) - N/A N/A N/A Special Use Permit (SP) - N/A N/A N/A Other 1 N/A N/A N/A 2012 HIGHLIGHTS The CPA considered was the Comprehensive Plan Review ZTAs considered included Industrial Uses, Water/Sewer Regulations, Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging, Highway Commercial Wall Signs, Off-site Signs and Ministerial and Legislative Review Process Improvements The STA considered was Water/Sewer Regulations The CCP considered was the Firearms Training Facility at the Keene Landfill Site ZMAs considered included Albemarle Place (aka Stonefield), Estes Park, Greenbrier Commons, Three Notch’d Center, Albrecht Place and 5th Street-Avon Center SPs considered included Four Seasons Learning Center, David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair, Greenbrier Emergency Hospital, Ivy Forum, Congregation Beth Israel Cemetery, New Hope Community Church, Panorama Events, Pine Knot Historical Center, Community Christian Academy, Monu Park Soccer Fields, Southwood Boys and Girls Club, Regents School, Daylily Preschool, Castle Hill Cider, Howardsville Camping and Canoe Livery, Kenridge and a number of wireless facilities (towers) SDPs considered included Estes Park, Ivy Fire Station at the Kirtley Warehouse, the Firearms Training Facility at the Keene Landfill Site, Boar’s Head Sports Club, Dunlora Forest and several wireless facilities (towers) SUBs considered included The Preserve at Glenmore and Old Trail Other matters covered included AFD additions and renewals, the CIP and the Regional Livability Project Goals, including joint meetings of the County and City Planning Commissions Return to memo Page 1 of 4 Culpeper District Albemarle County Monthly Report May 2013 Special Issues  VDOT is working with the county for the upcoming SSYP public hearing. Preliminary Engineering PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE Route 53 Safety Project – Shoulder Widening 0.4 Mi E. of Monticello Loop Road Advertisement Construction February 2013 Route 53 Safety Project – Shoulder Widening 0.06 Mi E. of Monticello Loop Road Advertisement Construction February 2013 Route 53 Safety Project – Intersection Improvements at Route 20 Advertisement Construction February 2013 Route 708, Dry Bridge Road, Bridge Replacement over RR Right of Way Advertisement May 2013 Route 53 Safety Project – Intersection Improvements at Route 729 Right of Way Advertisement October 2013 Route 616, Black Cat Road, Bridge Replacement over RR Design Public Hearing Right of Way – May 2013 March 2014 Route 677, Broomley Road, Bridge Replacement over RR Design Public Hearing Right of Way – August 2013 December 2014 Route 637, Dick Woods Road, Bridge Replacement over Ivy Creek Design Public Hearing Right of Way – August 2013 December 2014 Route 29 Widening, Ashwood to Hollymeade Town Center Survey Preliminary Design – Spring 2013 December 2015 Route 250, Bridge replacement over Little Ivy Creek Survey Preliminary Design January 2018 Route 774, Bear Creek Road, Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping – 2016 November 2019 Route 703, Pocket Lane, Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping – 2016 November 2019 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE Best Buy Ramp Design Public Hearing Right of Way – Summer 2013 November 2014 Page 2 of 4 Construction Activities Route 29 Bypass (FO)0029-002-844 Scope: Design and construction 6.2 miles of highway between Route 250 to north of South Fork of the Rivanna River. Next major milestone: Submit Environmental Assessment to FHWA Contract Completion Date: September 16, 2016 Only activities authorized being performed to include IJR/Traffic Studies for northern and southern termini. If FONSI issued by FHWA, remaining PE activities (survey, geotechnical exploration, environmental delineations, etc.) as well as Final design, RW & CN activities can be initiated. Additional Public Involvement scheduled: Citizen Information meeting tentatively April/May. 2013 Design Public Hearing tentatively June/July 2013. McIntire Interchange 0250-104-103, PE101 Scope: Construct Interchange at McIntire Road and Rte 250 Next Major Milestone: Utility Relocations Contract Completion date: July 2, 2015. Project Construction started on March 4, 2013. Guardrail Repair GR07-967-096, N501 Scope: Guardrail repairs – on call – District wide. Next Major Milestone: Contract Renewal – 2nd term Contract Completion date: July 1, 2013. McCormick Road 0302-002-152,B650 Scope: Superstructure replacement. Next Major Milestone: Pre-construction meeting, April 18th. Road Closure, May 20th. Contract Completion: July 31, 2013. Millington Road 0665-002-6142 Scope: Superstructure replacement, State Forces. Next Major Milestone: Road Closure, June 10th. Proposed Completion: July 31, 2013. McIntire Road U000-104-102, C501 Scope: Construct New Two Lane Road, Bridge and Pedestrian Path. Next major Milestone: Place stone for bike trail and construct final paving. Contract Completion: October 15, 2013 Surface Treatment Schedule Scope: Surface Treat various roads. Next Major Milestone: Contractor planning to begin work in Albemarle County in May. Contract Completion: October 31, 2013 (Contractor should complete work in Albemarle County in June) Page 3 of 4 Slurry Seal Schedule Scope: Slurry Seal various roads. Next Major Milestone: Begin work. Contractor plans to begin work in Mill Creek around mid - April. Contract Completion: October 31, 2013. Plant Mix Schedule Scope: Plant mix overlay of various roads. Next Major Milestone: Begin work. Contractor plans to begin work around mid-April, Rte 29 south of Charlottesville. Contract Completion: December 6, 2013 Rte 53 HSIP Projects (NFO)0053-002-S30, S31, S32, M501 Scope: Curve improvements on Route 53. Next Major Milestone: Bids were opened March 27, 2013. Recommendation for contract award is pending. Contract Completion: September 25, 2013 Traffic Engineering Studies  Completed  Route 672 Blufton Road: Speed study completed; resolution completed; sign installation pending. VDOT Study Number- 003-0672-20130115-011  Route 6 @ Porters Road, Route 627: School zone/school flash review; review completed; Residency advised of applicable TE memo. VDOT Study Number - 003-0006-20130221-010  Route 20, Scottsville: School bus stop ahead signing review; Report completed; sign installation pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0020-20130305-010  Route 20 @ Route 250: Intersection pavement marking review; Report completed; pavement marking installation pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0250-20130301-006  Route 684, Half Mile Branch Road @ King Family Vineyards: Signing review; Report completed; No additional signage recommended. VDOT Study Number - 003-0684-20130305- 010  Route 692, Plank Road: School bus stop ahead signing review; Report completed; Sign installation pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0692-20130305-010  Route 676, Tilman Road @ Route 250: Safety review; Report completed; pavement marking installation pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0676-20130305-007  Under Review  Route 743, Hydraulic Road and Route 29: Safety review of left turns along hydraulic and u- turns; draft complete; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0743-20130305-007  Route 1428, Huntington Road, and Route 651, Free State Road: Multi-Way Stop review; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-1428-20130319-023  Route 250 and Route 20: Crosswalk review; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-1116- 20130403-020  Route 29 and Route 649, Airport Rd: Signing review; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003- 0029-20130403-010  I-64 E @ Route 20 on ramps: Signing review; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0020- 20130408-010  Route 29 @ Britts Mtn. Hollow: Signing review; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0029- 20130410-010 Page 4 of 4 Maintenance Activities  Limbing Operations on various Secondary Routes  Machining/Grading/Applying stone to non-hard surfaces roadways  Pipe Cleaning and Ditching Operations  Pothole Patching Operations  Debris Removal from March 6th Storm Joel DeNunzio Virginia Department of Transportation Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2013 3rd Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Report on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non- cash proffers for January through March, 2013 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Graham and Higgins; and Mses. McCulley, Allshouse, L., Ragsdale and Harris PRESENTER (S): N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: In 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly report on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, the report has been expanded to also include updates on non-cash proffers. The Board received the last quarterly proffer report on February 2, 2013, which included information on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-cash proffers for October through December, 2012. This report includes all proffer activity for the third quarter of FY 2013 (January- March 2013). The next quarterly report will be on the Board’s August 7, 2013 agenda. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs. DISCUSSION: Proffers Activity for Fiscal Year 2013 Third Quarter (January-March, 2013) A. New Proffered Revenue: There were no rezoning requests approved this quarter that provided new cash proffers. B. Total Proffered Revenue: The total proffered revenue is $43,232.742.20. This reflects annual adjustments to anticipated proffer revenue (not received yet obligated) from proffers in which annual adjustments were proffered. C. 3rd Quarter Cash Revenue: The County received a total of $1,046,452.98 from existing cash proffers during this quarter from the following developments: Development Amount Intended Purpose Stonefield $909,000.00 CIP Livengood (Glenmore S5) $39,508.28 CIP Livengood (Glenmore S5) $6,016.54 Affordable Housing Leake (Glenmore) $18,755.00 CIP Leake (Glenmore) $2,952.00 Affordable Housing Old Trail $22,000.00 CIP-Crozet Schools/Parks Wickham Pond II $4,500.00 CIP-Crozet Belvedere $4,000.00 Affordable Housing Avinity $39,721.16 CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 5 TOTAL $1,046,452.98 D. 3rd Quarter Expenditures: There were no appropriations or expenditures this quarter. Current Available Funds: As of March 31, 2013, the available proffered cash on-hand is $3,167,592.78 (including interest earnings on proffer revenue received). Some of these funds were proffered for specific projects while others may be used for general projects within the CIP. AGENDA TITLE: FY 2013 3rd Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report May 1, 2013 Page 2 Of the available proffered cash on-hand, $1,122,620.64 is currently appropriated (See Attachment A for details). The net cash balance is $2,044,972.14. Attachment B provides information on how the net cash may be used for future appropriations. BUDGET IMPACT: Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue to address the impacts from development and they support the funding of important County projects which would otherwise be funded through general tax revenue. Using cash proffer funding for current or planned FY13–FY17 CIP projects builds capacity in the CIP by freeing up funding for other projects. In addition, non-cash proffers provide improvements that might otherwise need to be funded by general tax revenue. Community Development Department and Office of Management and Budget staff monitor proffer funds on an on- going basis to ensure that associated projects not currently in the CIP move forward and to ensure that funding is appropriated to projects before any proffer deadlines. RECOMMENDATIONS: This summary is provided for information only and no action is required at this time. ATTACHMENTS: A- March 31, 2013 Summary of Cash Proffer Funds Balances B-Net Available Proffer Funds Summary and Use of Funds Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda FUND # PROFFER NAMETOTAL PROFFERED REVENUETOTAL FUNDS RECEIVEDTOTAL INTEREST EARNINGSTOTALEXPENDITURES(Transfer to Projects)CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSAPPROPRIATED FUNDSAPPROPRIATED INTEREST EARNINGS Projects/$REMAINING AVAILABLE FUNDSREMAINING AVAIBLE INTEREST EARNINGSNET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSACTIVE8547ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD$2,610,000.00$1,284,000.00$112.31$0.00$1,284,112.31$375,000.00$0.00Seminole Trail Vol. Fire. Dept. Ren/Add$909,000.00$112.31$909,112.318548AVINITY$1,703,712.44$235,936.96$37.70$0.00$235,974.66$0.00$0.00 $235,936.96$37.70$235,974.668534AVON PARK$59,000.00$59,000.00$5,735.35$0.00$64,735.35$59,000.00$0.00Avon Street Sidewalks$0.00$5,735.35$5,735.358536BELVEDERE STATION$400,250.00$115,500.00$845.56($58,009.66)$58,335.90$0.00$0.00 $58,250.00$85.90$58,335.908531ECKERD PHARMACY$6,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008520GLENMORE$893,000.00$752,000.00$129,929.81($875,364.10)$6,565.71$0.00$0.00 $1,000.00$5,565.71$6,565.718521GLENMORE$569,000.00$331,000.00$56,331.17($375,000.00)$12,331.17$0.00$0.00 $2,300.00$10,031.17$12,331.178523GRAYROCK$62,500.00$62,500.00$13,307.00$0.00$75,807.00$62,500.00$12,380.00Crozet Regional Stormwater Management $0.00$927.00$927.008527HOLLYMEAD AREA C$210,000.00$169,523.75$5,202.95($112,442.36)$62,284.34$59,523.75$2,741.04Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$19.55$19.558528HOLLYMEAD AREA D$481,000.00$480,999.68$23,868.45($473,712.00)$31,156.13$20,085.18$11,061.19Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$9.76$9.768545HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1$609,000.00$109,000.00$588.49($28,506.62)$81,081.87$30,733.69$322.73Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$50,000.00$25.45$50,025.458572LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP$2,430,203.86$37,510.00$0.00$0.00$37,510.00$0.00$0.00$37,510.00$0.00$37,510.008573LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing$0.00$5,904.00$0.00$0.00$5,904.00$0.00$0.00$5,904.00$0.00$5,904.008544LIBERTY HALL $137,600.00$108,800.00$231.41$0.00$109,031.41$102,400.00$199.19Crozet Streetscapes Phase II; Crozet Library$6,400.00$32.22$6,432.228574LIVENGOOD$980,274.47$45,524.82$0.00$0.00$45,524.82$0.00$0.00 $45,524.82$0.00$45,524.828529MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE$346,250.00$419,144.85$10,475.72$0.00$429,620.57$0.00$0.00 $419,144.85$10,475.72$429,620.578538NORTH POINTE$460,000.00$400,000.00$28,810.93($420,359.50)$8,451.43$0.00$8,451.43Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$0.00$0.008537OLD TRAIL VILLAGE$2,328,000.00$145,000.00$1,889.82($75,854.29)$71,035.53$24,000.00$16.44Crozet E S ADA Entrance Ramp/Crozet Greenway$47,000.00$19.09$47,019.098546POPLAR GLEN II$155,600.00$155,600.00$168.92($33,016.05)$122,752.87$89,600.00$82.95Crozet Library$33,006.76$63.16$33,069.928533STILLFRIED LANE$78,000.00$78,000.00$6,358.08($83,379.00)$979.08$0.00$962.07Ivy Fire Station; Crozet Library$0.00$17.01$17.018525UVA RESEARCH PARK$78,178.00$78,718.00$899.76($79,500.00)$117.76$0.00$117.72Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$0.04$0.048535WESTERN RIDGE$5,000.00$5,159.12$857.46($5,000.00)$1,016.58$159.12$857.46Crozet Library$0.00$0.00$0.008541WESTHALL (1.1)$90,000.00$91,000.00$2,856.79$0.00$93,856.79$51,000.00$2,728.70Crozet Streetscapes Phase II $40,000.00$128.09$40,128.098542WESTHALL (1.2)$30,000.00$37,000.00$925.91($7,000.00)$30,925.91$10,000.00$896.30Crozet Streetscapes Phase II $20,000.00$29.61$20,029.618543WESTHALL (3.3)$3,000.00$3,000.00$167.32$0.00$3,167.32$0.00$0.00 $3,000.00$167.32$3,167.328540WICKHAM POND$345,161.67$292,622.90$4,110.04($59,161.00)$237,571.94$194,853.66$2,948.02Crozet Streetscapes Phase II; Crozet Library$39,704.66$65.60$39,770.268549WICKHAM POND II$405,000.00$57,725.81$16.52$0.00$57,742.33$0.00$0.00 $57,725.81$16.52$57,742.33FUTURE05th STREET AVON 3$250,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0005th STREET AVON 4$100,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0005th STREET AVON 12$100,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000AVON PARK II$461,368.15$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000BARGAMIN PARK$18,200.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000BLUE RIDGE CO-HOUSING$323,556.88$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000CASCADIA$405,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000ESTES PARK$754,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000FONTANA PHASE 4C$780,635.81$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000HADEN PLACE$82,500.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A2$16,926,027.01$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000NGIC EXPANSION$1,405,988.98$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000OAKLEIGH FARM$1,488,112.94$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000PATTERSON SUBDIVISION$145,611.91$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000RIVANNA VILLAGE @ GLENMORE$1,163,876.08$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000WILLOW GLEN$2,907,800.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.00COMPLETED8530ALBEMARLE PLACE$100,000.00$100,000.00$3,666.41($103,666.41)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.008526AVEMORE$50,000.00$50,000.00$1,286.43($51,286.43)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008539GREENBRIER$9,334.00$9,334.00$81.72($9,415.72)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008532HOLLYMEAD AREA B$50,000.00$50,000.00$1,521.85($51,521.85)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008524SPRINGRIDGE$100,000.00$100,000.00$2,214.97($102,214.97)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008522STILL MEADOWS$135,000.00$135,000.00$17,220.78($152,220.78)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.00TOTAL$43,232,742.20$6,004,503.89$319,719.63($3,156,630.74)$3,167,592.78$1,078,855.40$43,765.24$1,122,620.64$2,011,407.86$33,564.28$2,044,972.14CASH PROFFERSAPPROPRIATED PROFFERS SUMMARYNET CASH PROFFERS NET AVAILABLE PROFFER FUNDS SUMMARY AND USE OF FUNDS 4/11/13FUND # PROFFER NAMENET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDS PROFFERED USE OF FUNDS RECOMMENDED/POTENTIAL USE OF FUNDS8547 ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD $909,112.31 CIP-GeneralCIP-General FY13 New Library/Storage FacilityHydraulic Sidewalk8548 AVINITY$235,974.66 CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 5CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 58534AVON PARK$5,735.35CIP-Neighborhoods 4-Pedestrian ImprovementsMust use for specific project8536BELVEDERE STATION$58,335.90Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8520GLENMORE$6,565.71School CIP/Other CIP-GlenmoreSchool CIP/Other CIP-Glenmore8521GLENMORE$12,331.17CIP-250/Glenmore-TransportationRt. 250 Pedestrian Crossings or Shadwell Interchange8523GRAYROCK$927.00Interest/Jarmans Gap Road ImprovementsCIP-Crozet Project TBD8545HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1$50,025.45CIP-Hollymead-Greenway connection/Pedestrian Crossing OnlyGreenway connection/Pedestrian Crossing8572LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP$37,510.00CIP-General8573LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing$5,904.00Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8544LIBERTY HALL $6,432.22CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Greenway Project8574LIVENGOOD-CIP$39,508.28CIP-General CIP-General-TBD8574LIVENGOOD-Affordable Housing$6,016.54Affordable HousingAffordable Housing Project TBD8529MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE$429,620.57CIP-I-64/250 Improvements and TransitFY14 Transportation Projects and Revenue Sharing8537OLD TRAIL VILLAGE$47,019.09CIP-Crozet Parks/SchoolsCIP-Crozet (Parks/Schools TBD)8546POPLAR GLEN II$33,069.92CIP-Affordable HousingAffordable Housing Project TBD8533STILLFRIED LANE$17.01CIP-General or Affordable HousingProject TBD8541WESTHALL (1.1)$40,128.09Eastern Avenue in Crozet/After 10 years Crozet CIPCIP-Crozet (Transportation Projects)8542WESTHALL (1.2)$20,029.61CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Greenway Project8543WESTHALL (3.3)$3,167.32Greenway bridge in WesthallMust use for specific project8540 WICKHAM POND $39,770.26 CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Greenway Project CIP-Crozet Project TBD8549 WICKHAM POND II $57,742.33 CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Project TBDTOTAL$2,044,972.14 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: County Grant Application Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Summary of grant applications submitted and grants received from February 15, 2013 through April15, 2013 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Davis and White, and Ms. Allshouse, L. PRESENTER (S): N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Pursuant to the County’s Grants Policy and associated procedures, staff provides periodic reports to the Board on the County’s application for and use of grants. STRATEGIC PLAN: Grant awards provide funding to support a variety of projects, the majority of which support Goal 5, Ensure the health and safety of the community. DISCUSSION: The attached Grants Report (Attachment A) provides a brief description of five grant applications submitted by the County between February15, 2013 and April15, 2013. Also attached is a report on the use of the Grant Matching Fund (Attachment B) which was established by the Board in FY 12 with a $100,000 appropriation. To date, over $2 million in grant funds has been received and the County has provided match funds totaling $86,516. All grant funds and matching funds are subject to appropriation by the Board prior to the expenditure of any funds awarded to the County. BUDGET IMPACT: The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant. RECOMMENDATIONS: This report is for information only. ATTACHMENTS: A – Grant Report B – Matching Funds Report Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda ATTACHMENT A GRANT REPORT ACTIVITY from February 15, 2013 through April 15, 2013 Applications were made for the following grants VA Dept of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Federal Continuation Grant $71,250 $3,750 YMCA Social Services These grant funds will be used to fund an ongoing after school program for elementary school children who live at the Wilton Farm Subdivision in Albemarle County. The program will be housed at the Broadus Memorial Baptist Church located near Wilton Farm on Rt. 20. The Charlottesville/Albemarle YMCA will provide the teachers and staff for the program and the program will include the evidence based PATHS (Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies) curriculum. Va Commission of the Arts Local Government Challenge Grant State $2,500 $2,500 Appropriation to Piedmont Arts Council OMB The County plans to use the grant funds, as it has since FY 88/89, to provide local funds to arts organizations identified in the FY13/14 recommended budget. This year the organization identified is Piedmont Council for the Arts. DCJS State Justice Assistance Grant Federal Continuation Grant $28,500 $1,500 County Matching Funds Police These grant funds will be used for evidence collection, management equipment, and related training. The equipment has long-term maintenance expenses. In addition, the mobile device evidence recovery system has a $2,900 annual maintenance fee for necessary updates and additions that may have to be added to the PD's IT budget in the future. Va Division of Motor Vehicles Highway Safety Project Grant Federal $39,080 $19,540 $2,512 Department Budget $17,028 In-kind Police These grant funds will be used to fund 800 hours of traffic safety overtime activities and 1 in-car camera system for speed enforcement Va Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) Local Emergency Management Grant Program Federal $25,481 $25,481 Department Budget ECC VDEM disburses funds on a reimbursement basis to support the locality's efforts to develop and maintain a Comprehensive Emergency management Program. These funds will support ECC Coordinator costs. Return to exec summary ATTACHMENT B GRANT MATCHING FUNDS REPORT 27-Feb-13 Department Granting Entity Grant Number Grant Award Match Funds Purpose Fire & Rescue FEMA EMW-2012-FO-00667 107,565$ 23,391$ Training for Volunteers Fire & Rescue FEMA EMW-2011-FH-00313 1,261,305$ 42,270$ Hire and Equip new firefighters Police DCJS 12-B2149AD09 46,789$ 2,148$ Improve Evidence Collection Police DCJS 13-A2720JB10 35,995$ 4,000$ Risk/need assessment for gang prevention and intervention Police DCJS 13-C2149AD11 40,725$ 2,144$ Surveillance and monitoring equip Police DMV 154AL2012521934571 40,000$ 2,203$ Speed/DUI Enforcement Sheriff DMV SC2013533845099 10,320$ 3,360$ Selective Speed Enforcement Airport DOT 500,000$ 7,000$ Expanded Air Service TOTAL 2,042,699$ 86,516$ Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Illegal Hunting and Trespassing Enforcement SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Presentation of illegal hunting and trespassing enforcement efforts during the 2012-2013 hunting season STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Davis, Brown, Sellers, and Jenkins, G. PRESENTER (S): N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Police Department (PD) received a large number of citizen complaints regarding illegal hunting, trespassers and spot lighting from the roadway throughout the 2012/2013 hunting season. The majority of complaints came from southern Albemarle County. Additionally, many citizens contacted Board members to voice their concerns regarding community safety. As a result, on January 9, 2013, the Board appropriated $12,000 to the PD for enhanced illegal hunting and trespassing enforcement efforts. Working closely with the Virginia Game Wardens, the PD provided uniformed patrols and undercover operations in the most impacted areas. Additional efforts included hunter education community forums. The purpose of this informational item is to provide an overview of the illegal hunting enforcement operation (Attachment A). STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal #5: Ensure the Health and Safety of the Community DISCUSSION: There were 167,340 hunting licenses purchased in Albemarle County during the 2012/2013 hunting season, well exceeding the population of the County. This number of hunters indicates that Albemarle County is considered a hunting destination, which makes prevention and education efforts complex. The funding appropriated to address illegal hunting this past season made a significant impact in enhancing community safety in targeted areas of the County. Without the additional funding and the assistance of the Virginia Game Wardens, staffing limitations would have prevented proactive measures to address the issues of trespassing, illegal hunting and spot lighting. Officers assigned to the illegal hunting enforcement efforts worked to support the operation on their days off so that normal patrol staffing would not be negatively impacted. Staff recommends that a similar operation be considered for the next hunting season with additional prevention and education efforts prior to the start of the season in partnership with the 14 known hunting clubs in Albemarle County. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no budget impact for this information item. The PD requested $12,000 to fund enhanced illegal hunting and trespassing enforcement efforts for the 2013/2014 hunting season as part of the FY 2014 budget process. That request is included in the approved FY 2014 budget. RECOMMENDATIONS: No action is necessary at this time. The Board has already indicated its continued support of enhanced illegal hunting and trespassing enforcement efforts for the 2013/2014 hunting season. ATTACHMENTS: A – Southern Albemarle Illegal Hunting Presentation Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Southern Albemarle ILLEGAL HUNTING COMPLAINTS Southern Albemarle Illegal Hunting October 1, 2012 received a complaint from Thomas Sullivan regarding illegal hound hunting in the area of Jefferson Mill Rd. and Blenheim Rd. over the weekend of September 29-30. October 8, 2012 received another complaint from John Wilkerson regarding illegal hound hunting in the area of Blenheim Rd. over the weekend of September 29-30. October 8, 2012 Game Warden, Paul Inge, received a complaint through their Crimeline regarding a large white hemi pick-up dropping hounds along the roadway of Blenheim Rd. to run deer. Noted Problems On the weekend of September 29-30, 2012 members of the Woodridge Hunting Club sponsored a “Fox Chase” hunt in the Woodridge area of Albemarle County. According to the complaints, dogs were dropped along the roadways of Blenheim Rd. and Jefferson Mill Rd. Men in vehicles surrounded a 25 mile area of Woodridge in an effort to monitor this “Fox Chase”. Trespassing, shooting from the roadway, hounds running through neighborhoods and other game law violations were noted by the victims. Mailbox vandalisms and deer carcasses being dumped in driveways are also noted if anyone reports to Law Enforcement. Noted Problems October 27, 2012 Officer Darrell Mikesh and GW Paul Inge were patrolling southern Albemarle County when they found illegal deer at a residence located at 4780 Blenheim Ridge Rd. Three deer carcasses were located, two had been shot on Sunday. Stuart McDaniel was charged with hunting w/o a license and hunting on Sunday. November 6, 2012 officers responded to 800 Millwood Lane for a report of illegal deer hunting. Officers found five-six deer carcasses dumped in the creek at the bridge. Concerned Landowner Blenheim Road I wanted to add our voices to those who are taking a firm stand against the Woodridge "Sportsmen's" Club and the practice of hound hunting for deer in Albemarle. For years now, my neighbors and I have had to endure countless property rights violations and have been witness to blatant disregard for game laws. Even now, some of us worry about criminal retribution for speaking out against this group of bullies. (I don't expect my mailbox to make it through this deer season and for deer carcasses to be left in the driveway). Last weekend's 25 square mile "field trial" was a direct shot across the bow of private property owners and law enforcement. It was meant to send a message that they intend to hunt wherever, whatever and whenever they want to with impunity. • Last 90 days of activity Friday/Saturday most active between 1700-2100 hrs. 78 calls for service Calls for Service Millwood Lane Bridge Actions Taken Working with BOS which has allocated $12,000 for overtime for officers to work game enforcement assignments. District Supervisor, Corporal Gary Pistulka, assigned as project manager/Operations Plan development. Officers providing extra patrols while working patrol shifts. Working with impacted land owners to address growing problem. Officers working with local Game Wardens to identify possible suspects/impacted areas for enforcement. District Officer, Darrell Mikesh, assigned as department “Point of Contact” for land owners/other agencies. Roll Call trainings by GW Paul Inge. Interdiction operations-November 24th/December 8th, 2012 daylight hours. Actions Taken (Operational) Operational Order created based on ◦Citizen Complaints ◦Crime Trends ◦Departmental Needs Actions Taken (Operational) Morning patrols for Illegal hunting ◦Joint Patrols with Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. ◦Assignments from 0600 until 1200 ◦Plain clothes and unmarked vehicles ◦Targeting Illegal Hunting trespassing, weapons violations Actions Taken (Operational) Evening Patrol Hunting Operation ◦Joint Patrol assignments (2 Officers) ◦1900 until 2300 Hours May be varied up to an hour to work with the officer’s schedule ◦Officers will be in uniform for this assignment. ◦Areas selected based on Complaints Calls for service Statistical data ◦Secondary to the Joint Patrols Financing Hunting Operation Hours used 12000.00 = 314.71 Man Hours Available ◦240 scheduled operational hours ◦Officer hours used 210.5 ◦G&IF Hours 129 (not compensated by Albemarle County) Actions Taken (Operational) Statistical Data Hunting Involved Cases (ACPD) 2012-08703 Blenheim Ridge Rd. Illegal Hunting 2012-08804 Blenheim Ridge Rd. Animal Running at Large 2012-09316 Eyeland Drive  Larceny Narcotic Violation Cruelty to Animals 2012-09296 Campbell Rd. Illegal Dumping Statistical Data Continued 2012-09296 Campbell Rd. Illegal Dumping 2012-08897 Millwood Ln.  Illegal Dumping 2012-09561 Shots Fired, Spotlighting 201209976 Gordonsville Road Hit & Run, Drug Violation 2012-10585 Arrowhead Valley Rd. Illegal Dumping Actions Taken (Operational) Actions Taken (Operational) Statistical Data, Charges Hunting without License: 4 Pending: 1 Hunting with Firearm while Intoxicated: 2 Exceed Bag Limit: 2 Trespass: 13 Pending: 1 Transport Loaded Firearm on Highway: 2 Miscellaneous Hunting or Animal Violations: 8 Kill Deer Illegally: 2 Fail to Validate Tag/Check Deer: 2 Unauthorized Feeding of Deer: 1 Driving Under the Influence: 1 Possession of Firearm by Convicted Felon: 3 Drug Violation:2 Pending: 1 Larceny: 2 Traffic: 5 Pending: 3 Hunting Operation Overall Statistics 2012 Total Hunting Licenses issued in Albemarle County: 167,340 Contacts: 673 Charges: 49 Pending: 6 Operational Events: 24 Man Hours: 210.5 ACPD 129 G&IF Estimated Man Hour Cost: $8,026.37 After Action Enforcement should start four weeks prior to Hunting Season Surveillance in areas with yearly dumping ◦Surveillance cameras on Millwood, Campbell, and Stony Point Pass Night OPS during bow season (joint w/G&IF) Better training for Officers prior to Hunting Season COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Trevor Henry, Director County of Albemarle Office of Facilities Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 FROM: Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner, Planning Division DATE: April 25, 2013 RE: CCP201300001 County Use of 705 Rio Road West (tax parcel 06100-00-00-120K0) The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 23, 2013, by a vote of 7:0, found the location, character and extent of the proposed uses of 705 Rio Road West are in substantial accord with the County’s adopted Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified as the favorable factors of the staff report. The Planning Commission further requested that final site design comply with the Comprehensive Plan’s Neighborhood Model principles and the Community Facilities Plan to the greatest extent possible. Favorable factors are outlined below: 1. The site is centrally-located in a designated Development Area and has access to necessary public infrastructure including a good transportation network and public utilities. 2. A public library on this site will provide for an institutional use that will complement and support the Urban Mixed Use center and areas around it. 3. The existing building can be renovated to meet the general community facility standards and more specific library facility needs and standards as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The renovation of the building and site will not impact streams, floodplain, WPO or steep slope. Office of Facilities Development (OFD) Capital Projects Status Report 1st Quarter CY 2013 May 1, 2013 OFD is pleased to present the first quarter Capital Projects Status Report for calendar year 2013. The report provides summary level information on all projects managed by OFD, both Capital Projects and Capital Maintenance Projects. As you will recall, the first of this type report was presented to you in February and covered CY 2012 fourth quarter. The Board confirmed the format and contents of th e report provided the level of detailed expected. The OFD team has been busily supporting a myriad of County projects this spring; the following provides a few highlights on notable projects. The Ivy Fire station is on schedule to start limited ambulance operations in May with full station operations in July. The Crozet Library is on track for a July substantial completion date with JMRL staff planning to occupy in August. The Seminole Trail Fire station bid dates have slid a month due to making several adjustments on the site plan in order to obtain approval through the review process. The Belvedere Residential "Block" roads, drainage, water, sanitary sewer project from Free State Road bridge to the Village Green has been bid and finally the Firearms Training Center/Range site selection process is ongoing. The following sections provide a summary on all projects and more detailed information of select Capital Projects. During the meeting on the 1st, Trevor Henry will provide a summary level review of projects and he along with the individual PM’s will be available for any detailed questions. Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013 Page 1 of 9 CAPITAL PROJECTS In Construction Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone Crozet Library Construction of a 23,000 square foot, LEED certified library building, which will include space for complementary uses such as public meeting rooms and community space.  Construction underway; approximately 65% complete as of March 2013.  Ongoing coordination on furniture, fixtures and books purchase (funded by Friends of the Library). $8,867,491  Substantial completion July 2013  Occupancy August 2013 Crozet Streetscape Phase II Relocation of overhead electric and utility lines from Crozet Avenue, new stormwater drainage system, first block of Main Street (Library Avenue), and pedestrian, vehicular, and streetscape enhancements along Crozet Avenue from The Square to Tabor Street.  Dominion Virginia Power (DVP) utility relocation underway; Comcast coordinating with DVP for sharing areas of open trench installation; CenturyLink awarded their relocation work independent of DVP and is expected to be complete within 2 months once work is started.  Coordinating electrical service connections to DVP’s relocated lines.  Final streetscape design plans and project manual submitted to VDOT for review and approval.  2 dedications being finalized for recordation; 1 deed for plat correction being signed by owner. $4,457,898  Utility relocation complete – 2nd Quarter 2013  Streetscape – Bid/award 2nd /3rd Quarter 2013, ~10-14 months construction  Library Ave accepted in State system Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013 Page 2 of 9 Ivy Fire Station A 24/7 fire & rescue facility of roughly 5,800 square feet, within an existing warehouse (owned by the University of Virginia), consisting of 3 apparatus bays (2 engines, 1 ambulance) and support facilities for a crew of 6.  Construction underway; approximately 70% complete as of March 2013.  Finalizing details for emergency signal control, IT systems, and furniture/fixture procurements. $2,221,029  Substantial completion May 2013  On-Line July 2013 COB McIntire Brick Re-Pointing Three (3) projects involved in scope: 1) Brick Re-pointing; 2) Masonry Repairs; and 3) Front Stairs Waterproofing.  Brick Re-pointing: Substantial completion achieved February 2013.  Masonry Repairs: Complete Sept. 2012.  Front Stairs Waterproofing: Notice of Award issued 3/29/13. $948,460  Brick Re-pointing: Final Completion March 2013  Masonry Repairs: Final Completion September 2012  Front Stairs Waterproofing: NTP April 2013, substantial completion ~30 days In Bid/Award Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone Murray High School Renovations Renovations of selected existing classrooms to enable "Enterprise" program students to move from learning cottages to classrooms. Includes moving existing ARC operation to former learning cottages and upgrade to science classroom. Very challenging schedule with significant amount of logistical coordination.  Two bid packages being advertised: 1) Demolition/Asbestos Abatement; 2) Renovations.  Bid openings scheduled: 4/19/13 (Demo/Abate); 5/1/13 (Renovation). $699,830  Demolition/ Abatement NTP 5/3/13; completion 6/28/13  Renovation NTP 6/6/13; substantial completion 8/9/13 Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013 Page 3 of 9 In Design/Planning Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone Crozet North Sidewalk Replacing or constructing approximately 1100 feet of sidewalk and drainage improvements along the west side of Crozet Avenue from Saint George Avenue to Crozet Elementary School Construction partially funded with FY13 Revenue Sharing (RS) Funds. A Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Grant provides improved pedestrian crossing at the school and extends sidewalk to Ballard Drive.  St. George Ave to School Sidewalk: o A/E contract for final design and right-of- way acquisition services pending VDOT splitting the RS project award into 2 UPC project numbers. o VDOT determined our “on-call” civil engineering services procurement process met VDOT requirements. o Evaluating VDOT process requirements regarding use of RS funds to determine impacts to project schedule and budget.  SRTS Sidewalk: o Final plans and project manual submitted to VDOT for approval and authorization to bid. o Right of Way Certification submitted to VDOT. o Planning bid opening end of May. $852,408 (Crozet North $662,408; SRTS $190,000)  St. George Ave to School – appropriate RS funds; Bid/award 3rd/4th Quarter 2013, ~4 months construction  SRTS – Bid/award 2nd Quarter 2013, ~4 months construction South Pantops Drive/State Farm Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements Construction of 3500 feet of curb, gutter and sidewalk which will serve several residential, business, and  A/E contract for right-of- way acquisition and construction phase services pending VDOT $900,264  Appropriate RS funds  Bid/award 3rd /4th Quarter 2013, ~6 months construction Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013 Page 4 of 9 commercial establishments. Construction partially funded with FY13 Revenue Sharing (RS) Funds. splitting the RS project award into 2 UPC project numbers.  VDOT determined our “on-call” civil engineering services procurement process met VDOT requirements.  Evaluating VDOT process requirements regarding use of RS funds to determine impacts to project schedule and budget. Fontaine Avenue Sidewalk Construction of a short sidewalk (~160') from the Research Park to the City line. This project closes gaps between sidewalks which may create safety issues if left uncorrected.  Anticipate starting design 2nd Quarter 2013. $102,189  Bid 3rd Quarter 2013, ~1 month construction Hollymead-Powell Creek Drive Sidewalk Completion of the sidewalk connection from Hollymead to Sutherland Schools. The required right-of-way has been donated.  Anticipate starting design 2nd Quarter 2013. $209,164  Bid 3rd Quarter 2013, ~1 month construction Police Firing Range Project has been re-scoped to an indoor range. Executive Committee has been analyzing/reviewing Multiple sites prioritizing those sites under control of County or Joint partners.  Continue site design analysis.  Form committee to support site determination. $1,614,208  Site recommendation to BOS in July/Aug Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013 Page 5 of 9 Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department (STVFD) Addition/Renovation Addition (10,500 sq. ft.) to STVFD and full renovation of the existing facilities (~7,500 sq. ft.). Includes 2-bay addition, expansion of living Quarters and full renovation of existing facility to bring it to code and improve the facilities to properly support the highest call volume station in the County.  Bid documents to be finalized week of 4/22/13.  Received asbestos report from consultant – non- friable asbestos found at floor tiles so must add abatement to scope.  Community Development site plan issues have been addressed. Revised site plan submitted on 4/22/13. Resolution of some site issues require waiver requests (i.e. critical slope and buffer zone) that will be included on 5/1/13 Consent Agenda.  Anticipate issuing notice to proceed by 2nd quarter 2013 and substantial completion by 2nd quarter 2014. $3,836,670  Bid/Award 2nd Quarter 2013, ~12 months construction Church Road Basin Stormwater Management Facility Retrofit Maintenance/enhancements to existing regional stormwater management facility including survey, design, and construction. Project will help the County meet required pollutant reductions mandated for the Chesapeake Bay watershed.  A/E contract approved March 2013.  Planned Tasks: o Survey site. o Complete Design Charrette. o Submit USACE permit application/ obtain approval. o Complete construction documents. $449,739  Obtain U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Permit (wetlands and stream)  Bid/Award 1st Quarter 2014, ~8 months construction Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013 Page 6 of 9 Belvedere Phase I Complete the Belvedere Boulevard and Residential "Block" roads, drainage, water, sanitary sewer and related construction according to the approved development plans. Phase 1 of the work is Belvedere Boulevard from Rio Road to Free State Road (RR bridge); Phase 2 is the remaining Belvedere Boulevard (Free State Rd. to the Village Green) and the residential "Blocks" (3, 4A, 5A, 6B & 9A). Funds for this project are from the developer’s performance bonds. Phase 1 Work:  VDOT determined that existing base asphalt is of an inferior quality and removal of all base asphalt will be required  Bond proceeds not sufficient to cover work; project on hold.  Continuing to work with VDOT to find other solutions. Phase 2 Work:  Advertise 4/15/13; bid opening 5/15/13. $3,675,790  Phase 1 Work – Resolve funding issues  Phase 2 Work – Bid/award 2nd Quarter 2013, ~7 months construction Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Construction of an educational building (including transportation exhibits and river history), an access road and parking area, and a connecting trail network, all located at Darden Towe Park. Funded by a grant through the VDOT Transportation Enhancement Fund Program ($800,000) combined with other funds raised by the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center.  Final LCEC reimbursement request being prepared for submittal to VDOT.  Completed County & City granting of a Dominion Power easement across the Park property.  Coordinating County & City dedication of an ACSA waterline easement across the Park property.  Board approved $130,000 appropriation to the Economic Development Authority for funding a loan to the $800,000 (Grant only)  Planned Completion May 2013 Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013 Page 7 of 9 LCEC for completion of the project; and authorized County Executive to sign an agreement subject to certain payment/ repayment terms and the City contributing the other $130,000 required to make up the $260,000 shortfall. MAINTENANCE PROJECTS Substantially Complete Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone County Courthouse ADA Accessible Ramp Installation of a new ADA accessible ramp and entry door. Work will involve demolition of an existing window and portion of masonry wall; a new door will be installed in the opening. The new ramp will be installed as a continuation of the existing ramp.  Project substantially complete February 2013.  Verifying completion of punch list items. $37,785  Close out project 2nd Quarter 2013 Greenwood Community Center Foundation Drainage Repairs Building was constructed in 1950 and there are no foundation drains. Needs foundation drains and waterproofing to eliminate water seeping into building along foundation and through foundation wall. Downspouts will also be collected in a pipe and routed away from the building. Project will reduce mold, improve air quality and allow the space to be utilized.  Project substantially complete April 2013. $61,421  Close out project 2nd Quarter 2013. Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013 Page 8 of 9 In Bid/Award Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone VMF Lift Replacements Phase II Replace 1 bus lift.  Notice of Award issued 3/28/13.  Anticipate issuing Notice to Proceed 6/6/13. $162,524  Secure lift June 2013  Substantial Completion July 2013 Albemarle High School New Gym & Gym Addition Re-Roofing Tear- off and re-roofing of new gymnasium and gymnasium addition roofs. Gymnasium is 21,800 square feet and gymnasium addition is 10,000 square feet.  Pre-bid meeting 3/27/13.  Bid opening 4/18/13. $391,560  Award 2nd Quarter 2013  Substantial Completion August 2013 Building Services Main Building Re-Roofing Tear-off and re-roofing of Building Services' main building. Main roof is 9,440 square feet.  Pre-bid meeting 3/27/13.  Bid opening 4/18/13. $136,710  Award 2nd Quarter 2013  Substantial Completion August 2013 Cale Elementary School Main Building and ’97 Addition Re- Roofing Tear-off and re-roofing of main building and 1997 addition roofs. Main building is 52,851 square feet and new addition is 7,100 square feet.  Pre-bid meeting 4/8/13.  Bid opening 4/25/13.  Project to be phased; too much work to perform in 10 weeks without driving costs up significantly. Estimate entire project is 90 days duration and 66 days available. $726,820  Award 2nd Quarter 2013  Substantial Completion August 2013 Jouett Middle School Brick Re- Pointing Re-point deteriorated sections of brick veneer and repair (overhead) cracked brick at recessed opening.  Pre-bid meeting 3/29/13.  Bid opening 4/16/13. $58,940  Award 2nd Quarter 2013  Substantial Completion August 2013 Jouett Middle School Tennis Court Improvements Renovation of: a) 2 existing regulation tennis courts into 10 U-8 teaching courts; and b) existing asphalt-paved area into 1 combination regulation / U-10 teaching tennis courts and an area for 3 basketball hoops.  Bid Documents to be issued on 4/19/13.  Pre-Bid Meeting scheduled for 04/29/13.  Bid Opening scheduled for 5/14/13. $142,100  Bid Award 2nd Quarter 2013  Substantial Completion August 2013 Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013 Page 9 of 9 Scottsville Elementary School Cafeteria & Gym Structural Repairs Perform structural repairs to CMU walls that appear to have been damaged during earthquake. Work will include structural reinforcement and architectural work to improve the aesthetic value of the structural work.  Pre-bid meeting 4/1/13.  Bid opening 4/10/13. $107,100  Award 2nd Quarter 2013  Substantial Completion August 2013 Parks Road Resurfacing 2013 Resurface portions of parking lots at 6 county parks: Mint Springs; Preddy Creek Trails Park; Charlotte Y. Humphris Park; Cladius Crozet Park; Beaver Creek Park; and Totier Creek Park.  Pre-bid meeting 4/10/13.  Bid opening 4/18/13. $140,000  Award April 2013  Substantial Completion May 2013 In Design/Planning Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone Stormwater Multi-Facility Maintenance Projects Includes maintenance (sediment removal/dredging) and possible upgrades to several existing regional stormwater management facilities (Four Seasons Upper and Lower basins, the Greenbrier Road forebay (Hillsdale Ave), and the Mill Creek basin. - Phase 1 scope: surveying and analysis of existing facilities to determine required improvements and possible enhancements. - Phase 2 scope: complete design documents and construction of recommended improvements/enhancements.  A/E contract approved for Phase 1 scope. $373,404  Complete survey & facilities analysis 2nd Quarter 2013.  Complete design documents for improvements/ enhancements 3rd Quarter 2013.  Bid/Award 4th Quarter 2013 Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project: Crozet Library Building Description: Design and construction of a 23,000 square foot, LEED certified library building, which will include space for complementary uses such as public meeting rooms and community space. The primary mission of the new facility is to serve the library needs of the defined Western Albemarle service area with a concerted focus on both existing and emerging technologies and solutions that will support the library’s programming and best serve its patrons. Status: Construction underway, anticipate substantial completion July 2013. Construction contract approximately 65% complete as of March 2013. Work planned for April/May 2013 includes: complete Dominion Virginia Power connection; start-up HVAC units; complete brick; parking lot grading; sidewalk ramp (switchback); windows in place and authorize CenturyLink to move fiber optic cable line to resolve conflict with storm sewer (received VDOT acceptance of responsibility for fiber conflict with storm sewer and will reimburse the County for the cost). Project remains on schedule for occupancy by the Library in August 2013. Meetings are ongoing with Library representatives and Friends of the Library (FOL) coordinating the furniture, fixtures and books purchase (funded by FOL). Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) Bid Opening Date 03/28/12 03/28/12 0 Notice to Proceed 07/01/12 07/01/12 0 Excavation Complete 11/09/12 11/12/12 3 Structural Elements Complete 01/24/13 01/24/13 0 Building Dried-In 04/23/13 04/30/13 7 Finishes Complete 05/14/13 05/25/13 11 Site Work Complete 06/13/13 06/25/13 12 Substantial Completion 06/30/13 07/15/13 15 Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project Budget: Baseline [June 2012] Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 8,867,491 $ 8,867,491 $ - Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ - Additional Source $ - $ - $ - Total $ 8,867,491 $ 8,867,491 $ - Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 1,703,199 $ 1,767,330 $ (64,131) Hard Costs $ 6,596,550 $ 6,911,974 $ (315,424) Contingency $ 567,742 $ 188,188 $ 379,554 Total $ 8,867,491 $ 8,867,491 $ - Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ - Encumbered: $ 2,465,660 Paid to Date: $ 5,527,735 A/E Contract (Grimm+Parker Architects) Construction Contract (MB Contractors) Original Agreement $585,000 Bid Award $5,810,000 Approved Changes $409,369 Approved Changes $ 82,749 Pending Changes $0 Pending Changes $ 63,000 TOTAL $994,369 TOTAL $5,955,749 A/E Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – Increase size; change schedule (FY09) $226,755 2 – Add geotechnical investigation (FY09) $8,945 3 – Add LEED service (FY10) $120,450 4 – Change to phased plan, delete FFE design & reduce CA (FY10) ($161,295) 5 – Parking lot SWM & ARB review (FY12) $7,590 6 – Restore CA & FFE design; adjust for scope & schedule (FY13) $206,915 Construction Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – Slope drain & waterline revisions $5,323 2 – Waterline changes in Crozet Ave; credit for 2500lb elevator vs 3000lb $54,374 3 – Locate fiber optic line Crozet Ave; additional waterproofing at basement $2,865 4 – Increase column size; floor box revisions (electrical) 5 – Mechanical breaker change and sprinkler relocation 6 – Tube steel at clerestory and re- routing roof drains $14,362 $2,855 $2,970 Pending: Revise conduits through parking lot; ditch improvements at Crozet Ave; revise sidewalk to be ADA compliant; casework changes $63,000 Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project: Crozet Streetscape Enhancements Phase II Phase 2 (Crozet Avenue) and 2A (Main Street and Alleys) Description: Phase 2 and 2A of the Crozet Streetscape Enhancements includes relocation of overhead electric and utility lines from Crozet Avenue, new stormwater drainage system, first block of Main Street (Library Avenue), and pedestrian, vehicular, and streetscape enhancements along Crozet Avenue from The Square to Tabor Street. Status: Phase 2 – Crozet Avenue: • Dominion Virginia Power (DVP) relocation/undergrounding has commenced; Comcast has coordinated with DVP for sharing areas of open trench installation; CenturyLink has awarded their relocation work independent of DVP and is expected to be complete within 2 months once work is started. Coordinating electrical service connections to DVP’s relocated lines. • Finalizing two deeds and plats for recordation; one plat correction is being signed by owner. • Final design plans and project manual submitted to VDOT for review and approval. Phase 2A – Main Street and Alleys: Library Avenue construction completed and street opened to public in late June 2011. VDOT has accepted the street into State secondary system. Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) Design Complete 08/30/12 02/28/13 182 Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 08/30/12 05/01/13 244 VDOT Approval to Advertise 09/30/12 06/01/13 244 Utility Relocation Complete 10/30/12 06/01/13 214 Advertise 09/30/12 06/15/13 258 Bid Opening Date 10/30/12 07/15/13 258 Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of Contract 11/30/12 08/15/13 258 Ph-A Curb, Drainage & Sidewalk Complete 06/01/13 12/15/13 197 Ph-B Curb, Drainage & Sidewalk Complete 11/01/13 07/01/14 242 Paving Complete 12/01/13 08/01/14 243 Substantial Completion 01/30/14 08/15/14 197 Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project Budget: Baseline [March 2007] Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 3,380,213 $ 3,380,213 $ - Future Appropriations $ 319,787 $ 1,077,685 $ (757,898) Additional Source $ - $ - $ - Total $ 3,700,000 $ 4,457,898 $ (757,898) Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 590,000 $ 804,401 $ (214,401) Hard Costs $ 2,770,000 $ 3,415,274 $ (645,274) Contingency $ 340,000 $ 238,222 $ 101,778 Total $ 3,700,000 $ 4,457,898 $ (757,897) Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ - Encumbered: $ 905,328 Paid to Date: $ 1,547,880 * Future Appropriation includes a transfer of $583,433 from SWM fund and $181,900 from the Crozet Library project; and $230,452 in Revenue Sharing and $81,900 PM fee still to be appropriated A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract (Ph 2A – Library Ave) Original Agreement $379,000 Bid Award $641,695 Approved Changes $163,761 Approved Changes $138,473 Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ 0 TOTAL $542,761 TOTAL $780,168 A/E Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – Jarmans Gap Road interim storm system & historic resources (FY09) $41,500 2 – Additional plats & transportation planning services (FY09) $12,625 3 – Main Street extension to proposed Library entrance (FY09) $24,000 4 – Conceptual Downtown Plaza improvements (FY09) $9,750 5 – Additional plats (FY10) $2,750 6 – Temporary tie-in of new Main Street (FY10) $21,000 7 – Water & sewer relocation design (FY10) $7,300 8 – Library storm sewer advance work (FY12) $5,961 9 – Finalize const. documents (FY13) $38,875 Construction Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – Sidewalk revisions, additional asphalt, power conduit/pull boxes in alleys $73,625 2 – Add parking spaces, revise storm sewer outfall, temporary electric service for lighting $43,455 3 – Raise ACSA meter, extend project schedule $21,393 Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project: Crozet North Sidewalk Description: Provide for pedestrian safety by replacing or constructing approximately 1100 feet of sidewalk and drainage improvements along the west side of Crozet Avenue from Saint George Avenue to Crozet Elementary School. County and Revenue Sharing funds are being used to provide the sidewalk from St. George Avenue to Crozet Elementary School. A Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Grant provides improved pedestrian crossing at the school and extends sidewalk to Ballard Drive. Status: Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk: A/E contract for final design, right-of-way acquisition and construction phase services pending VDOT splitting the Revenue Sharing (RS) project award into two UPC project numbers. VDOT determined our “on-call” civil engineering services procurement process met VDOT requirements. Process requirements regarding use of RS funds being evaluated to determine impacts to project schedule and budget. Various requirements related to use of RS funds were not realized until a kick-off meeting (i.e. construction inspector presence; VDOT UPC number impact on project advertisement). Currently anticipate having necessary VDOT approvals to advertise for bid by 3rd quarter and award in 4th quarter 2013; approximately 4 months construction. Safe Routes to School Sidewalk: Final plans and project manual submitted to VDOT for review and approval – request authorization to advertise once approved. Right of Way Certification has been submitted to VDOT. Currently planning bid opening end of May. Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) Revenue Sharing Project (St. George to Crozet ES) Design Complete 02/14/13 7/15/2013 151 Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 03/15/13 9/1/2013 170 VDOT Approval to Advertise 04/15/13 9/1/2013 139 Bid Opening Date 05/31/13 9/30/2013 122 Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of Contract 06/30/13 10/15/2013 107 Curb & Drainage Complete 08/31/13 12/15/2013 106 Sidewalks Complete 09/30/13 12/15/2013 76 Paving Complete 10/15/13 1/10/2014 87 Substantial Completion 10/15/13 2/15/2014 123 SRTS Grant Project (Crozet ES to Ballard Dr.) Design Complete 04/30/12 02/20/13 296 Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 05/31/12 12/30/12 213 VDOT Approval to Advertise 06/30/12 04/30/13 304 Bid Opening Date 08/15/12 05/30/13 288 Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of Contract 09/15/12 06/30/13 288 Curb & Drainage Complete 11/15/12 08/30/13 288 Sidewalks Complete 11/30/12 09/15/13 289 Paving Complete 12/15/12 09/30/13 289 Substantial Completion 12/15/12 09/30/13 289 Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project Budget: Baseline Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 564,808 $ 564,808 $ - Future Appropriations $ 96,592 $ 287,600 $ (191,008) Additional Source $ - $ - $ - Total $ 661,400 $ 852,408 $ (191,008) Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 104,200 $ 224,833 $ (120,633) Hard Costs $ 497,200 $ 619,400 $ (122,200) Contingency $ 60,000 $ 8,175 $ 51,825 Total $ 661,400 $ 852,408 $ (191,008) Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ - Encumbered: $ 9,866 Paid to Date: $ 109,367 A/E Contract – RS Sidewalk (Kimley-Horn & Assoc.) Construction Contract Original Agreement $40,000 Bid Award $ Approved Changes $ 1,600 Approved Changes $ Pending Changes $41,000 Pending Changes $ TOTAL $82,600 TOTAL $ A/E Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount 1 - Eliminate bid/construction observation; add plats & final engineering services. Pending: Waterline relocation design and wetland delineation, environmental permitting, right-of- way acquisition and construction phase services $1,600 $41,000 A/E Contract – SRTS (Anhold Associates) Original Agreement $20,697 Approved Changes $2,524 Pending Changes $ 0 TOTAL $23,221 A/E Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – Prepare documents to relocate existing waterline conflicting with proposed stormwater utilities $2,524 Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project: South Pantops Drive/State Farm Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements Description: Provide for pedestrian safety along the north side of South Pantops Drive and west side of State Farm Boulevard by constructing 3500 feet of curb, gutter and sidewalk which will serve several residential, business, and commercial establishments. Construction will be partially funded with FY13 Revenue Sharing Funds. Status: A/E contract for right-of-way acquisition and construction phase services pending VDOT splitting the Revenue Sharing (RS) project award into two UPC project numbers. VDOT determined our “on-call” civil engineering services procurement process met VDOT requirements. Process requirements regarding use of RS funds being evaluated to determine impacts to project schedule and budget. Various requirements related to use of RS funds were not realized until a kick-off meeting (i.e. construction inspector presence; VDOT UPC number impact on project advertisement). Currently anticipate having necessary VDOT approvals to advertise for bid by 3rd quarter and award in 4th quarter 2013; approximately 6 months construction. Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) Design Complete 12/31/12 07/15/13 196 Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 03/15/13 09/01/13 170 VDOT Approval to Advertise 04/15/13 09/01/13 139 Bid Opening Date 06/01/13 09/30/13 121 Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of Contract 07/01/13 10/15/13 106 Curb & Drainage Complete 09/01/13 01/10/14 131 Sidewalks Complete 10/01/13 02/01/14 123 Paving Complete 10/15/13 03/15/14 151 Substantial Completion 10/31/13 04/01/14 152 Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project Budget: Baseline [July 2008] Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 512,000 $ 526,664 $ (14,664) Future Appropriations $ - $ 373,600 $ (373,600) Additional Source $ - $ - $ - Total $ 512,000 $ 900,264 $ (388,264) Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 60,000 $ 128,069 $ (68,069) Hard Costs $ 410,000 $ 717,150 $ (307,150) Contingency $ 42,000 $ 55,045 $ (13,045) Total $ 512,000 $ 900,264 $ (388,264) Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ - Encumbered: $ - Paid to Date: $ 70,170 A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract Original Agreement $39,116 Bid Award $ Approved Changes $ 9,369 Approved Changes $ Pending Changes $42,100 Pending Changes $ TOTAL $90,585 TOTAL $ A/E Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – Update survey (FY09) $600 2 – Additional survey (FY09) $6,950 3 – Add topo survey, plats & final engineering; eliminate bidding/ construction observation (FY12) $1,819 Pending: Bidding/construction phase; easement acquisition services $42,100 Page 1 of 2 May1, 2013 Project: Ivy Fire Station Description: A 24/7 fire & rescue facility of roughly 5,800 square feet, within an existing warehouse (owned by the University of Virginia), consisting of 3 apparatus bays (2 engines, 1 ambulance) and support facilities for a crew of 6. A fire/rescue station is needed to meet the response time goals in this portion of the County’s development area and to provide services to this densely populated rural area of the County. Status: Construction underway, anticipate substantial completion May 2013, with station on-line July 2013. Construction contract approximately 70% complete as of March 2013. Original goal of April early occupancy was delayed due to need to address unforeseen concrete floor and column footing deficiencies. Work planned for April 2013 includes: complete siding; install mechanical/air handlers; emergency signal control engineered plan to VDOT. Easement deficiency issue resolved with Community Development and adjacent property owners. Procurements complete for altering system, generator, badge card readers and phones. Finalizing details for emergency signal control, IT systems, and furniture/fixture procurements. Overhead doors will be completed in May, but Temporary Occupancy Permit expected May 1 for ambulance operations. Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) Bid Opening Date 09/27/12 09/27/12 0 Notice to Proceed 10/19/12 10/22/12 3 Demolition Complete 11/12/12 11/15/12 3 Building Infrastructure Complete 03/01/13 03/22/13 21 Finishes Complete 04/01/13 04/22/13 21 Site Work Complete 04/01/13 05/01/13 30 Substantial Completion 04/01/13 05/01/13 30 Page 2 of 2 May1, 2013 Project Budget: Baseline [July 2011] Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 2,173,793 $ 2,221,029 $ (47,236) Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ - Additional Source $ - $ - $ - Total $ 2,173,793 $ 2,221,029 $ (47,236) Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 332,139 $ 424,110 $ (91,971) Hard Costs $ 1,650,000 $ 1,502,901 $ 147,099 Contingency $ 191,654 $ 191,654 $ - Total $ 2,173,793 $ 2,118,665 $ 55,128 Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ 102,364 Encumbered: $ 358,385 Paid to Date: $ 910,083 A/E Contract (LeMay Erickson Willcox Architects) Construction Contract (Coleman-Adams Const.) Original Agreement $165,730 Bid Award $724,000 Approved Changes $ 20,635 Approved Changes $ 40,424 Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ 47,062 TOTAL $186,365 TOTAL $811,486 A/E Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – Structural evaluation & reinforcement design $6,600 2 – Site plan coordination w/ adjacent property $2,720 3 – Sprinkler redesign, generator, additional structural evaluations $11,315 Construction Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – Replace concrete floor slab in apparatus bay area 2 – Miscellaneous items (12), electrical, grease trap, etc. Pending: column piers corrections; front footer revisions; mezzanine storage area; countertops, CMU $28,059 $12,365 $47,062 Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project: Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Addition/Renovation Description: Addition (10,500 sq. ft.) to Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department (STVFD) and full renovation of the existing facilities (~7,500 sq. ft.). Total scope includes a 2-bay addition, an expansion of living quarters and full renovation of the existing facility to bring it to code and improve the facilities to properly support the highest call volume station in the County. Status: Bid documents to be finalized week of 4/22/13. Received asbestos report from consultant – non-friable asbestos found at floor tiles so must add abatement to scope. Community Development site plan issues have been addressed. Revised site plan was submitted on 4/22/13. Resolution of some site issues require waiver requests (i.e. critical slope and buffer zone) that will be included on 5/1/13 Consent Agenda. Site Plan approval is critical path on the project. Anticipate issuing notice to proceed by 2nd quarter 2013 and substantial completion by 2nd quarter 2014. Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) Pre-design Complete 01/11/13 01/18/13 7 Design Complete 03/22/13 04/26/13 35 Bid Opening Date 04/11/13 05/22/13 41 Notice to Proceed 04/29/13 05/31/13 32 Renovation Demo Complete 06/14/13 07/19/13 35 Excavation Complete 07/05/13 07/26/13 21 Structural Elements Complete 09/06/13 09/27/13 21 Building Dried-In 11/29/13 12/20/13 21 Finishes Complete 02/28/14 03/21/14 21 Site Work Complete 03/21/14 04/11/14 21 Substantial Completion 04/04/14 04/25/14 21 Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project Budget: Baseline [May 2012] Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 3,824,947 $ 3,824,947 $ - Future Appropriations $ 11,723 $ 11,723 $ - Additional Source $ - $ - $ - Total $ 3,836,670 $ 3,836,670 $ - Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 426,320 $ 488,596 $ (62,276) Hard Costs $ 3,126,500 $ 2,961,685 $ 164,815 Contingency $ 283,850 $ 283,850 $ - Total $ 3,836,670 $ 3,734,131 $ 102,539 Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ 102,539 Encumbered: $ 122,356 Paid to Date: $ 315,059 A/E Contract (DJG, Inc. – includes Add. & Renov.) Construction Contract Original Agreement $428,444 Bid Award $ Approved Changes $ 0 Approved Changes $ Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ TOTAL $428,444 TOTAL $ Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project: Murray High School Renovations Description: Renovations of selected existing classrooms to enable "Enterprise" program students to move from learning cottages to classrooms. Includes moving existing operation of ARC and their records to former learning cottages and upgrade to science classroom. Some asbestos abatement will be performed. Very challenging schedule with significant amount of logistical coordination. Status: Two bid packages currently being advertised: 1) Demolition/Asbestos Abatement; 2) Renovations. Additional funding identified by Building Services in order to accelerate schedule. Planned tasks include: coordinating various moves; issue notice to proceed for demolition/asbestos abatement by 5/3/13; provide 20-day notification for asbestos abatement to State by 5/7/13; start work on demo/abatement 5/27/13; issue notice to proceed for renovation construction 6/6/13 with substantial completion 8/9/13. Project is presently estimated to be over appropriated budget but we have included alternates to help with this potential issue and expectations are that in this favorable bidding climate we will receive very competitive pricing. There were eleven (11) potential bidders at pre-bid conference. Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) Pre-design Complete 03/01/13 03/01/13 0 Design Complete 03/28/13 04/05/13 8 Demo / Abatement Bid Opening 04/19/13 04/19/13 0 Renovation Bid Opening 04/25/13 05/01/13 6 Notice to Proceed - Demo/Abate 05/03/13 05/03/13 0 Notice to Proceed - Renovations 05/17/13 06/06/13 20 Demolition Complete 06/28/13 06/28/13 0 Building Infrastructure Complete 07/05/13 07/12/13 7 Finishes Complete 08/02/13 08/02/13 0 Substantial Completion 08/09/13 08/09/13 0 Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project Budget: Baseline [March 2013] Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 46,950 $ (46,950) Future Appropriations $ 567,390 $ 567,390 $ - Additional Source $ - $ 85,490 $ (85,490) Total $ 567,390 $ 699,830 $ (132,440) Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 58,900 $ 69,350 $ (10,450) Hard Costs $ 454,000 $ 560,896 $ (106,896) Contingency $ 54,490 $ 69,584 $ (15,094) Total $ 567,390 $ 699,830 $ (132,440) Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ - Encumbered: $ 18,155 Paid to Date: $ 29,641 A/E Contract (Rancorn Wildman Architects) Construction Contract Original Agreement $46,950 Bid Award $ Approved Changes $ Approved Changes $ Pending Changes $ Pending Changes $ TOTAL $46,950 TOTAL $ Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project: McIntire County Office Building Brick Repointing Description: There are three projects involved in the scope. 1) Brick Repointing: removal and replacement of existing damaged grout joints and expansion/caulk joints, also includes masonry repairs at concrete banding/precast sills, helical pier installation and a thorough cleaning of all the masonry walls. 2) Masonry Repairs: partial brick veneer replacement and installation of new spiral ties, includes installation of steel lintels, replacement of existing precast concrete sills and partial replacement of painted wood frieze board. 3) Front Stairs Waterproofing: removal of the existing masonry waterproofing layer, repair of existing concrete substrate and installation of new 20 year warranty waterproofing membrane. Status: Brick Repointing: Work substantially complete February 2013. Substantial completion date extended previously for change order that was issued for installation of helical brick ties to stabilize brick façade. Confirming completion of final punch list items. Final change order for window sill and trim replacement being processed. Masonry Repairs: Work complete – final completion achieved September 2012. Front Stairs Waterproofing: Notice of Award issued to Strickland Waterproofing Company on March 29, 2013. A Notice to Proceed will be issued once the County executes the construction contract which is expected to be April 2013. Project to be substantially complete 30-days from Notice to Proceed. Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) Brick Repointing: Design Complete 02/29/12 02/29/12 0 Bid Opening Date 03/29/12 03/29/12 0 Notice to Proceed 05/15/12 05/21/12 6 Demolition Complete 11/12/12 01/11/13 60 Finishes Complete 11/12/12 01/31/13 80 Substantial Completion 11/12/12 02/15/13 95 Masonry Repairs: Design Complete 02/29/12 02/29/12 0 Bid Opening Date 04/05/12 04/05/12 0 Notice to Proceed 05/15/12 05/15/12 0 Finishes Complete 11/06/12 08/23/12 -75 Substantial Completion 11/06/12 08/23/12 -75 Front Stairs Waterproofing: Design Complete 01/03/13 01/03/13 0 Bid Opening Date 02/07/13 03/28/13 49 Notice to Proceed 03/07/13 04/28/13 52 Finishes Complete 04/06/13 05/28/13 52 Substantial Completion 04/06/13 05/28/13 52 Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project Budget: Baseline [July 2011] Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 948,460 $ 948,460 $ - Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ - Additional Source $ - $ - $ - Total $ 948,460 $ 948,460 $ - Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 28,460 $ 77,951 $ (49,491) Hard Costs $ 750,000 $ 794,088 $ (44,088) Contingency $ 170,000 $ 76,421 $ 93,579 Total $ 948,460 $ 948,460 $ - Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ - Encumbered: $ 110,661 Paid to Date: $ 755,710 A/E Contract – 3 projects (Heyward Boyd Architects) Construction Contract (Dominion Waterproofing) Original Agreement $33,728 Bid Award (Repointing) $308,458 Approved Changes $ 0 Approved Changes $185,586 Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ 2,849 TOTAL $33,728 TOTAL $496,893 Construction Contract (Simpson Unlimited) Bid Award (Masonry) $178,480 Approved Changes $ 31,868 Pending Changes $ 0 TOTAL $210,348 Construction Change Orders: (Simpson) No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – CMU repair, EIFS repair, window head & sill flashing $26,253 2 – Cut brick at bow in wall, credit for parking lot gouges $5,615 Construction Change Orders: (Dominion) No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – Installation of helical brick ties $183,770 2 – Additional driven pile $1,816 Pending – Window sill & trim replacement $2,849 Pending Construction Contract: (Strickland Waterproofing) Bid Award (Stairs) $86,700 Approved Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ 0 TOTAL $86,700 Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project: Church Road Basin Stormwater Management Facility Retrofit Description: The Church Road Basin project includes maintenance and enhancements to the existing regional stormwater management facility. The project scope includes survey, design, and construction. The County is required (through the DCR-issued stormwater permit) to reduce pollutant discharges (nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment) to impaired water having approved TMDLs, or pollution diets. This project will help the County meet required pollutant reductions mandated for the Cheasapeake Bay watershed. Status: A/E contract approved March 2013. Planned tasks include: survey site; complete design charrette; submit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit application and obtain permit approval; and complete construction documents. Anticipate issuing construction notice to proceed by 2nd quarter 2014; approximately 8 months construction. Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) 60%-design Complete 07/26/13 08/28/13 33 Design Complete 11/08/13 11/20/13 12 Bid Opening Date 02/28/14 02/28/14 0 Notice to Proceed 04/01/14 04/01/14 0 Substantial Completion 12/14/14 12/14/14 0 Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013 Project Budget: Baseline [March 2013] Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 430,250 $ 430,250 $ - Future Appropriations $ 19,489 $ 19,489 $ - Additional Source $ - $ - $ - Total $ 449,739 $ 449,739 $ - Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 98,739 $ 98,739 $ - Hard Costs $ 265,000 $ 265,000 $ - Contingency $ 86,000 $ 86,000 $ - Total $ 449,739 $ 449,739 $ - Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ - Encumbered: $ 72,772 Paid to Date: $ - A/E Contract ((Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract Original Agreement $72,772 Bid Award $ Approved Changes $ 0 Approved Changes $ Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ TOTAL $ TOTAL $ Project Vendor Contract Type Amount CO No.Scope Date Approved by CE Office Reason: >25% or >$50K Police Firing Range Kimley-Horn & Associates A/E $34,708.00 3 Completion of a Sound Model study, construction of a 3 dimensional computer model to determine sound levels within a 2 mile radius, conduct acoustic analysis for up to 3 alternative noise mitigation designs, produce a report based on this analysis, participate in a teleconference to discuss the results of the study, refine the existing range sketch, attend one meeting to prepare for BOS presentation and develop and review the feasibility and cost for up to 3 noise mitigation construction options. CO generated based on BOS request for information. 01/31/13 >25% Courts Study PSA-Dewberry A/E $1,800.00 2 Attendance at a working meeting with key stakeholders (Judges, Commonwealth Attorney, Sheriff, Court Clerks, etc.) to provide professional guidance based on knowledge of courts, courthouse design, building industry, and courts project. 02/19/13 >25% Change Orders Requiring County Executive Office Approval January 1, 2013 - March 31, 2013 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Implementing Multi-year Capital Budgeting SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review of Projected FY 13 Carry-Over CIP Projects STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis and Henry; and Ms. Allshouse, L. PRESENTER (S): Trevor Henry LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On July 11, 2012, the Board voted to support the following action regarding Multi-year CIP project appropriations:  Staff is to create a multi-year budget for CIP projects beginning in FY 14 such that project appropriations carry forward until expended or de-obligated by the Board, with the exception of projects where no money has been spent within the past fiscal year.  During the budget process, staff will provide a report about the status of projects to the Board. Unexpended CIP funding will be re-appropriated as part of the annual appropriation process. On March 13, 2013, the Board approved the Financial Management Policies, which were formally adopted on April 3, 2013 in the FY 2013/2014 budget resolution. The adopted policies include the following Capital Budget policies: “the County will approve a multi-year capital budget in accordance with an approved Capital Improvements Program. All unspent and unencumbered appropriations allocated for capital projects shall be re-appropriated for completion of the projects. Upon completion of a capital project, the County Executive is authorized to close out the project and transfer any unencumbered unexpended residual funds to the Capital Improvement Fund fund balance.” STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs. Value of Stewardship: “To honor our role as stewards of the public trust by managing our …financial resources respectfully and responsibly.” DISCUSSION: Based upon Board feedback during the March 7, 2013 Capital Budget work session and the approval of the policy March 13, staff has reviewed and prepared a summary of FY 13 Capital Projects (Attachment A.). The financial information in Attachment A is provided as of April 8 and includes pending budget, expenditure, and encumbrance updates and corrections. The Estimated Carry Forward amount may not be equal to the Estimated Balance due to pending changes and anticipated expenditures. The summary of information includes the project title, a brief description of the status, an estimated financial summary, and the status of the estimated balance. The projects are organized into different categories as follows:  Carry Forward into FY 14 Recommended: for those CIP projects or programs that are in progress and will require the use of budgeted funds (expenditure or encumbrance) to complete or advance the project or program;  No Carry Forward Recommended: for those CIP projects that are anticipated to be completed and will not require any balance of the currently budgeted funds in the next fiscal year;  No Expenditure-Carry Forward Recommended: for those CIP projects that remain active or for which contingency funding has previously been appropriated that have no programmed expenditures in the current fiscal year but will require the budgeted funds in future years; and  No Expenditure-Opportunity: for those projects that are not active and are not projected to need the budgeted funds in the planning period. AGENDA TITLE: Implementing Multi-year Capital Budgeting May 1, 2013 Page 2 BUDGET IMPACT: Based on the estimates in Attachment A, there are 38 Projects in the Carry Forward into FY 14 Recommended category totaling $14,789,479 and 21 Projects in the No Expenditure-Carry Forward Recommended category totaling $7,907,303. A total of $50,000 is anticipated to be returned to the CIP fund balance (deallocated), and another $50,000 has been identified that could be deallocated. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board implement the County’s multi-year CIP policy for the CIP project budgets that are included in Attachment A and direct staff to include in the June 2013 FY 14 Appropriation Resolution: (a) an appropriation that will carry forward funding for the currently funded capital project budgets in FY 13 that are recommended to carry forward into FY 14 in an amount not to exceed a total of $15,000,000 [Carry Forward Into FY 14 Recommended Category] and (b) an appropriation for those CIP projects that have not incurred expenditures or encumbrances in FY 13 but are recommended to carry forward into FY 14 [No Expenditure-Carry Forward Recommended Category]. The total amount of these CIP projects is estimated at $7,907,303. ATTACHMENTS: A - FY 13 Capital Projects Summary Return to agenda Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures Estimate FY 13 Encumbrance Estimate FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated Return Estimated Liquidation Description Carry Over Recommended ACE Program In-Progress $761,178.15 $9,654.00 $0.00 $751,524.15 $751,524.15 $0.00 $0.00 No additional expenditures are expected in the current fiscal year; the funding supports the acquisitions for the next round applicants due 4/30/13. Apparatus Repl Program: E. RIVANNA ENGINE 21 In-Progress $850,500.00 $31,662.19 $713,630.34 $105,207.47 $80,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 The apparatus is currently under construction and is anticipated to be complete August 2013. Apparatus Repl Program: MONTICELLO- AMBULANCE In-Progress $288,750.00 $0.00 $2,401.50 $286,348.50 $288,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 Upon the approval of the recent appropriation (March 2013), design of the apparatus began with an anticipated completion of December 2013. Funds are estimated to be encumbered before the close of the fiscal year. Apparatus Repl Program: SCOTTSVILLE-AMB 706 In-Progress $288,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 $288,750.00 $288,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 Upon the approval of the recent appropriation (March 2013), design of the apparatus began with an anticipated completion of December 2013. Funds are estimated to be encumbered before the close of the fiscal year. Apparatus Repl Program: SYSTEM AMBULANCE In-Progress $292,506.00 $55,398.35 $45,712.13 $191,395.52 $200,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Upon the approval of the recent appropriation (March 2013), design of the apparatus began with an anticipated completion of December 2013. Funds are estimated to be encumbered before the close of the fiscal year. Church Road Basin In-Progress $430,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $430,250.00 $426,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project was recently initiated to support maintenance and enhancements to an existing regional stormwater management facility. The project scope includes survey, design, and construction. The design phase should be completed by November 2013; construction will follow during FY14 fall/winter. The funds were allocated from the Stormwater Management Program. Expenditures are expected in the current year. City-County Branch Library Repair/Maintenance In-Progress $197,677.59 $14,292.60 $70,186.58 $113,198.41 $109,999.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the County's share of repair/maintenance projects at Central and Gordon Avenue Library. Unused project management fees to be deappropriated and returned to fund balance. Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal In-Progress $450,000.00 $80,000.00 $165,000.00 $205,000.00 $370,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is on-time and on budget and is expected to be complete December 2013. Court Square Maint/Repl Program In-Progress $504,492.24 $153,523.89 $62,724.19 $288,244.16 $352,484.89 $0.00 $0.00 This supports work identified in facility assessment, work orders, and requests from the Judges which includes: cyclical and interior maintenance; HVAC and HVAC control replacement; exterior building maintenance and repairs; and security upgrades. Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk In-Progress $487,208.17 $31,767.71 $9,865.68 $445,574.79 $400,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports: 1) Safe Routes to School portion - anticipate advertising for bid May 2013; substantial completion September 2013. 2) Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk (Revenue Sharing) - anticipate advertising for bid July 2013; substantial completion November 2013. This supports the a portion of the County's FY 13 Revenue Sharing funds. Crozet Library In-Progress $7,173,920.76 $3,386,613.04 $2,897,562.36 $889,745.36 $400,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 The Crozet Library is under construction and estimated to be substantially complete July 2013. Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures Estimate FY 13 Encumbrance Estimate FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated Return Estimated Liquidation Description Crozet Streetscape Phase II In-Progress $2,008,597.10 $78,809.39 $1,002,525.42 $927,262.29 $900,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility relocations are currently underway and are estimated to be complete before the end of FY13. Substantial completion of the Streetscape project is approximately 14 months from notice to proceed. The bid opening is estimated for the second quarter of calendar year 2013. Dam Break Study In-Progress $59,100.00 $0.00 $59,100.00 $0.00 $59,100.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports a dam break analyses and map of the resulting inundation zones for three of our regulated dams: two at Mint Springs Park and the Hollymead Dam. This is required to meet DCR - Dam Safety regulations. The work should be completed by July 1, 2012. The expenditure should be recorded in the current fiscal year but may be recorded in FY 14. Fire Department Contingency Contingency $59,084.11 $4,582.18 $0.00 $54,501.93 $54,501.93 $0.00 $0.00 This contingency supports major, unexpected repairs to County- owned fire and rescue apparatus. Firearms Range In-Progress $1,085,224.73 $158,160.63 $12,702.00 $914,362.10 $914,362.10 $0.00 $0.00 The project is currenlty on hold. It is being refocused from an outdoor training facility to an indoor facility. The amount expended to date on the project will not be reimbursed by the City. Expenditures made in FY13 will have little impact on the revised project scope. Since those expenditures were related to the design and planning of an outdoor facility, the focus on an indoor facility will require new design fees and associated costs. Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers Repl In-Progress $22,356.41 $0.00 $15,856.00 $6,500.41 $22,356.41 $0.00 $0.00 This project is in progress and is anticipated to be complete in August 2013. Fontaine Avenue Start FY 13 $102,189.01 $317.25 $0.00 $101,871.76 $70,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports the installation of a short sidewalk (~160') from the Research Park to the City line (right-of-way required). This project closes gaps between sidewalks which may create safety issues if left uncorrected. This project will be designed in-house and will be substantially complete 30-45 days from notice to proceed. Bid opening is anticipated to be mid-May. GIS Project In-Progress $415,381.86 $16,819.75 $33,831.25 $364,730.86 $330,730.86 $0.00 $0.00 The GIS Project is on time and on budget. Greenway Program In-Progress $55,775.76 $9,636.30 $0.00 $46,139.46 $46,139.46 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports the County's match for a grant with the Department of Conservation-Recreation Trails Program to enhance trail opportunities at Preddy Creek Park. The grant award is anticipated to be given in May 2013. Upon award, the project design is scheduled for summer 2013, and the project completion is estimated to be by June 2014. No expenditures are projected. Greer E S Renov/Add Phase II Substantially Complete $1,370,938.38 $1,244,238.36 $111,043.43 $15,656.59 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is substantially complete. Minor punch list and miscellaneous items will be completed by August 2013. Hollymead-Powell Creek Drive Start FY 13 $209,163.59 $141.00 $0.00 $209,022.59 $160,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the completion of the sidewalk connection from Hollymead to Sutherland Schools. The required right-of-way has been donated. This project will be designed in-house and will be substantially complete 30-45 days from notice to proceed. Bid opening is anticipated to be mid-May. Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures Estimate FY 13 Encumbrance Estimate FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated Return Estimated Liquidation Description Ivy Fire Station In-Progress $2,886,165.31 $1,271,851.38 $588,527.64 $1,025,786.29 $325,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is currently under construction and is expected to be substantially complete April 2013. The purchase of equipment and apparatus is expected to be complete in August 2013. Ivy Landfill Remediation In-Progress $1,157,351.34 $334,146.00 $111,382.00 $711,823.34 $711,823.34 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports the Memorandum of Understanding for the County's share of ongoing environmental remediation at the Ivy Material Utilization Center, which is managed by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) Old Jail Facility Maintenance In-Progress $42,941.83 $4,328.66 $7,258.28 $31,354.89 $7,258.28 $31,354.89 $0.00 This supports the continual effort to maintain this building and grounds in a state of arrested decay. The remaining balance will not be needed. Parks Maintenance In-Progress $537,505.00 $165,806.74 $0.00 $371,698.26 $104,061.62 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the County's share/co-sponsored agreement with the Charlottesville Parks and Recreation toward the design and construction of the finial new skate park being relocated at McIntrie Park. Project delay due to City Council's approval of the McIntire Park Finial Master Plan. Project design is to begin in May 2013 and the anticipated project completion date is September 2013. Places 29 Master Plan Future $1,199,664.35 $14,078.88 $0.00 $1,185,585.47 $1,170,921.12 $0.00 $0.00 No further expenditures are expected in FY 13; the carry-over is to support Berkmar Dr. design, crosswalks at Rio Rd./Fashion Square and Hydraulic Rd. sidewalk extension (supplements Revenue Sharing and proffers). Police Technology Upgrade In-Progress $740,448.13 $5,176.76 $0.00 $735,271.37 $730,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 A portion of the custom system software for the mobile product did not meet the Police Department's requirements. The PD is in negotiations with the vendor regarding the project balance and future license fees. Following negotiations, the PD will be expected to deliver a portion of the remaining balance and license fees to the vendor. The PD is currently in the RFP development phase for the purchase of a regional CAD/RMS/Mobile integrated product. When negotiations are complete with the current vendor, the PD will request a change in the description for the remaining funds to be used for this new project. Public Works Facility Maintenance-General In-Progress $518,095.29 $184,412.06 $38,387.62 $295,295.61 $388,376.04 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports several cyclical projects are scheduled along with emergency generator repairs, and ADA improvements. Records Management Future $206,323.12 $15,986.81 $3,800.00 $186,536.31 $153,494.93 $0.00 $0.00 This request is in support of the purchase of equipment/software, professional services and temporary labor for assistance in document conversion in the County's Community Development Department identified in the five-year Records Management Implementation Plan and Schedule as recommended by the Records Management Steering Committee. This request also includes services/training required to implement the new Laserfiche Records Management System. The Records Management Project is on schedule and currently underway. Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures Estimate FY 13 Encumbrance Estimate FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated Return Estimated Liquidation Description School CIP Maintenance In-Progress $4,613,802.51 $3,901,399.71 $234,371.04 $478,031.76 $320,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports projects that are being designed and procured this Spring. Construction will be completed by August 2013. These include roof replacements, HVAC replacements, and a renovation at Murray High School. Additional funding is carried over for ADA improvements (as needed). Seminole Trail VFD Renov/Add In-Progress $3,824,946.80 $289,747.89 $147,667.25 $3,387,531.66 $3,095,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is currently in design; it is anticipated to be bid in May 2013 with a substantial completion ~12 months from notice to proceed. Sheriff's Office Maint/Repl In-Progress $18,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports cyclical maintenance. No carry over funds are estimated. South Pantops Start FY 14 $475,677.03 $17,933.06 $1,250.00 $456,493.98 $425,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports sidewalk construction for South Pantops. The anticipated advertisment for bid is July 2013 with substantial completion in December 2013. This supports a portion of the County's 2013 Revenue Sharing Application. Storage Lease-Schools In-Progress $150,000.00 $77,418.80 $0.00 $72,581.20 $5,870.00 $0.00 $0.00 The storage lease payments are on-time and within budget. The balance is requested to support the projected increase. Tax/Rev System Replacement In-Progress $880,000.00 $237,244.45 $592,755.55 $50,000.00 $648,175.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is on time and on budget; the expected completion is January 2014. Transportation Improvement - Local Active $726,690.16 $0.00 $9,500.00 $717,190.16 $382,800.00 $0.00 $329,200.00 Approximately $382,000 supports the FY13 Revenue Sharing match for Hydraulic & Barracks Road sidewalks. As identified during the Boards March 2013 CIP work session, $329,200 will be reallocated to the transportation revenue sharing for the FY15 Revenue Sharing match. VMF Lifts In-Progress $31,068.93 $0.00 $0.00 $31,068.93 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project resumes in June 2013 and will be complete by August 2013. WAHS Stormwater Improvement In-Progress $102,038.75 $18,239.85 $15,218.00 $68,580.90 $62,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is currently in design and is anticipated to be bid in June 2013 and substantially complete 3 months from notice to proceed. 38 Total Projects $35,223,762.42 $11,813,387.68 $6,962,258.26 $16,448,116.48 $14,789,479.13 $31,354.89 $329,200.00 Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures Estimate FY 13 Encumbrance Estimate FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated Return Estimated Liquidation Description No Carry Over Projected Access Albemarle Complete $145,750.00 $135,153.15 $10,540.00 $56.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Project is near completion; the current phase concluding included an upgrade to BSO and GP. Administrative Technology In-Progress $183,000.00 $154,114.11 $0.00 $28,885.89 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The project is estimated to be completed and funding exhausted by the close of the fiscal year. Apparatus Repl Program: HOLLYMEAD AMBULANCE 121 Substantially Complete $283,500.00 $238,654.63 $44,845.37 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The purchase and delivery of the apparatus is complete. Apparatus Repl Program: CARS - AMBULANCE #1 Complete $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The estimate reflects the balance of CARS Ambulance #1 offseting the purchase of CARS Ambulance #3. Apparatus Repl Program: CARS - AMBULANCE # 2 Complete $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The estimate reflects the balance of CARS Ambulance #2 offseting the purchase of CARS Ambulance #3. Apparatus Repl Program: CARS - AMBULANCE #3 Substantially Complete $7,494.00 $6,069.71 $1,424.29 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The purchase and delivery of the vehicle is offset by the funds remaining from CARS Ambulance #1 and #2. Apparatus Repl Program: STONY POINT - ENGINE # 61 Substantially Complete $739,500.00 $671,173.56 $526.95 $67,799.49 $0.00 $65,000.00 $0.00 The estimate reflects the balance of CARS Ambulance #1 and #2 offseting the purchase of CARS Ambulance #3. Brownsville E S Media Center Complete $65,713.33 $65,713.33 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete. Byrom Park Substantially Complete $1,117.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,117.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports trails at Byrom Park and is expected to be complete June 2013. COB McIntire Brick Repointing In-Progress $731,182.33 $499,674.43 $44,582.34 $186,925.56 $0.00 $70,000.00 $0.00 The masonry repair and brick repointing phases of the project is complete. The final phase is waterproofing the front stairs which will be substantially complete 30 days from notice to proceed. The bid opening for front stairs waterproofing was on March 28, 2013. This project is anticipated to be completed this fiscal year. COB McIntire Parking Lot Biofilter Complete $13,817.65 $2,430.75 $0.00 $11,386.90 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete and will return the available balance to the Stormwater Management Program. County Server Infrastructure Upgrade In-Progress $405,000.00 $37,525.15 $13,907.00 $353,567.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project currently supports three major hardware purchases including storage, HyperV environment, and wireless infrastructure. These purchases are expected to be complete by the end of the fiscal year. Court Square Enhancment Complete $10,823.06 $7,502.80 $3,269.47 $50.79 $0.00 $50.79 $0.00 The Courts Study is complete. Crozet Greenways In-Progress $26,577.00 $0.00 $0.00 $26,577.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project support various projects within the Crozet Greenway Recreational trail system including uniform signage(regulation, directional, naming), Kiosk, boardwalks, and bridges. Projects are currently in design and estimated to be undertaken starting in April 2013 Downtown Crozet Wetlands Project Substantially Complete $120,064.50 -$28,763.51 $118,605.05 $30,222.96 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is substantiall complete. Any balance remaining will be returned to the Stormwater Management Program. Due Diligence Study Complete $22,000.00 $19,554.00 $1,676.00 $770.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The due diligence study for the MJH Rio Road parcel is complete. Fire Rescue Lifepacks In-Progress $402,979.00 $61,161.48 $341,817.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is expected to be completed before the end of fiscal year 2013. Fire Rescue Turnout Gear Complete $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete. General Transportation Project Management Active $16,920.41 $3,912.75 $0.00 $13,007.66 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 All budgeted project management services not expended will be returned. Instructional Technology Complete $576,017.88 $576,017.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is expected to be completed before the end of fiscal year 2013. J & DR Court Maint/Repl Not Active $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures Estimate FY 13 Encumbrance Estimate FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated Return Estimated Liquidation Description Local Area Network In-Progress $700,000.00 $127,163.01 $182,016.76 $390,820.23 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The LAN upgrade is currently under construction and is scheduled to be complete by June 30th, 2013. Additional material and equipment orders will be placed soon which should exhaust the remaining funds. Microsoft Upgrade Complete $73,719.09 $23,876.25 $3,539.48 $46,303.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete. Moore's Creek Septage Receiving Complete $109,441.00 $109,441.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The payment for FY 13 is complete. Neighborhood Plan Contingency Reallocated $50,239.61 $0.00 $0.00 $50,239.61 $0.00 $0.00 $50,239.61 These funds will be re-allocated to the Transportation Revenu Sharing Program as identified during the Boards March 2013 CIP Work Session. Pantops Fire Station Complete $266,620.00 $243,994.64 $19,000.00 $3,625.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete. Police Mobile Data Computers Complete $144,400.00 $77,367.00 $0.00 $67,033.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The FY 13 replacements/purchases will be completed by the close of Fiscal Year 2013. There is no projected balance to carry over or return. If any balance remains, it will be returned. Police Radio System Substantially Complete $42,731.00 $38,775.88 $385.29 $3,569.83 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The FY 13 replacements/purchases will be completed by the close of Fiscal Year 2013. There is no projected balance to carry over or return. If any balance remains, it will be returned. Police Video Cameras Substantially Complete $140,793.75 $140,577.17 $0.00 $216.58 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The FY 13 replacements/purchases will be completed by the close of Fiscal Year 2013. There is no projected balance to carry over or return. If any balance remains, it will be returned. Poll Books Complete $62,000.00 $62,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete. Preddy Creek Park Substantially Complete $13,094.76 $11,128.75 $0.00 $1,966.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports trails at Preddy Creek Park and is expected to be complete June 2013. Project Management Services, Future-General Government Active $12,719.67 $0.00 $0.00 $12,719.67 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 All budgeted project management services not expended will be returned. Project Management Services, Future-Schools Active $120,516.59 $0.00 $0.00 $120,516.59 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 All budgeted project management services not expended will be returned. Rivanna Trail Bridges Substantially Complete $8,460.20 $3,630.75 $0.00 $4,829.45 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the completion of the project. Solid Waste In-Progress $32,000.00 $30,981.05 $218.95 $800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is expected to be complete before the close of the fiscal year. State Technology Grant Complete $786,000.00 $786,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete. Storage Lease-General Government In-Progress $62,000.00 $30,107.32 $0.00 $31,892.68 $0.00 $1,383.94 $0.00 The storage lease payments are on-time and within budget. VFD Contingency Complete $41,174.57 $0.00 $20,684.81 $20,489.76 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Full balance will be utilized and appropriation request for additional funds will be forthcoming to OMB from ACFR. Water Resoures Support Active $6,220.70 $3,983.25 $0.00 $2,237.45 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 All budgeted project management services not expended will be returned. Woodbrook Lagoon Improvement Complete $82,255.07 $4,863.32 $0.00 $77,391.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete. The remaining balance will be returned to the Stormwater Management Program. 41 Total Projects $6,517,842.17 $4,155,783.61 $807,039.28 $1,555,019.28 $0.00 $136,434.73 $50,239.61 Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures Estimate FY 13 Encumbrance Estimate FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated Return Estimated Liquidation Description No Expenditure-Carry Over Recommended Avon Street In-Progress $70,992.22 $0.00 $0.00 $70,992.22 $70,992.22 $0.00 $0.00 This project budget was identified during the FY 14 Capital Work session with the Board as a source of the FY 15 Revenue Sharing Match. Avon Street Sidewalks is in the early stages to support design and construction for sidewalk, curb and gutter at Avon Street from Lakeside Apartments to City limits; however, the project is not fully funded so start date is dependant on funding. City View Project In-Progress $8,339.32 $0.00 $0.00 $8,339.32 $8,339.12 $0.00 $0.00 The City View Project is on schedule and currently underway in the form of an assessment that is being conducted using encumbered funds under the CIP GIS Project (GIS Application & Web Presence Needs Assessment) as the projects overlap and compliment one another. This will provide enhancements to the C-View Web application to facilitate public access for viewing/processing applications on-line. County Library Facilities Repair/Maintenance Active $27,877.59 $0.00 $0.00 $27,877.59 $24,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports capital maintenance at the current Crozet Library and the Scottsville Library. The work scheduled for FY 13 has been re- scheduled for FY 14. Crozet Main Street Not Started $92,084.62 $0.00 $0.00 $92,084.62 $92,084.62 $0.00 $0.00 The intended use of funds is to support extension of Library Avenue to the proposed Crozet Eastern Avenue; however, design/construction of the Crozet Eastern Avenue is not currently funded. The available funds may be used to extend or connect developer-funded/built portions of Library Avenue to existing developments. ECC Computer Aided Dispsatch System In-Progress $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the CAD replacement project originally esimated to total $1,320.000.00. In order to save CIP funding the ECC Management Board decided to fund the CAD Consultant part of the project with $201,000.00 from the ECC Fund Balance Account. The project RFP will be complete in July 2013. This fully intergrated project will now include fire & police RMS systems, a regional jail system and upgraded mobile data system. The complete project should be complete by the end of 2014. Based on the original $1,320,000.00 amount for CAD the jurisdictional breakdown shound be: Albemarle 48.45% or $639,540.00, Charlottesville 36.78% or $485,496.00, University of Virginia 14.77% or $194,964.00. This is based on the new updated ECC Funding Formula. ECC Emergency Telephone System In-Progress $1,343,208.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,343,208.00 $1,343,208.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is just beginning to be underway. The original plan had been to sole source the equipment from the current vendor but ECC is now going to purchase off an existing contract from another locality and are presently working with purchasing staff with the process. This project should be totally complete by December 31, 2013. Updated breakdown by jurisdiction based on the new ECC Funding Formula: Albemarle County 48.45% or $650,784.28, Charlottesville 36.78% or $494,031.82, University of Virginia 14.77% or $198,391.82 Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures Estimate FY 13 Encumbrance Estimate FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated Return Estimated Liquidation Description Health Department Maint/Repl Active $32,940.00 $0.00 $0.00 $32,940.00 $32,940.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports unscheduled repairs and preventative maintenance of the jointly-owned Health Department building Keene Landfill Contingency $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 This supports contingency funding for environmental conditions. Staff recommends reducing the budget based on recorded environmental conditions. It is anticipated this fund can be reduced by $10,000 per year for the next 4 years. Multi-Facility Maintenance In-Progress $364,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $364,000.00 $360,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project was recently initiated to support maintenance to several existing regional stormwater management facilities. The project scope includes survey, design, and construction. The design phase should be completed by early summer 2013; construction will follow during FY14 summer/fall. The funds were allocated from the Stormwater Management Program. Pantops Master Plan Future $123,395.80 $0.00 $0.00 $123,395.80 $108,731.45 $0.00 $0.00 No further expenditures expected in FY 13. The carry-over is to fund crosswalks at 250/20 and 250/Rolkin and traffic calming in Fontana(total costs will be dependent on designs) Public Works Facility Maintenance-Jessup House Active $41,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $41,250.00 $31,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports the County's share of exterior restoration which has been re-scheduled from FY 13 to FY 14. Public Works Facility Maintenance-Wheeler Building Active $31,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 $31,750.00 $41,240.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports the County's share of the HVAC and Window replacements which have been re-scheduled from FY 13 to FY 14. Recreation Facility Active $2,030,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,030,000.00 $2,030,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the County's committed contribution and agreement entered into with the YMCA in January 2008. The actual start and completion dates are unknown at this time. Revenue Sharing Program In-Progress $2,500,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,500,000.00 $2,500,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the County's portion of the revenue sharing program for: (a) $1,500,000 for Broomley Bridge and (b) $1,000,000 for the RS2014 Application Roadway Landscaping Contingency $105,289.35 $881.25 $0.00 $104,408.10 $90,625.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports continued maintenance on our entrance cooridors. Once exhausted, no additional funds will be requested. Sidewalk Contingency Contingency $83,735.54 $0.00 $0.00 $83,735.54 $83,735.54 $0.00 $0.00 This supports unforeseen project costs of the current sidewalk projects or of sidewalk projects/improvements with no funding that arise as a result of safety issues. Stormwater Management Program Contingency $592,469.71 $0.00 $0.00 $592,469.71 $417,552.86 $0.00 $266,445.00 FY13 Project Budgets reallocation totals $845,100. Projects included are $426,000.00 for Church Road Basin; $360,000.00 for Multi-Facility Maintenance; and $59,100 for Dam Study FY13 obligation totals $266,445 to support FY14 transfer to Stormwater fund. FY 13 completed projects will return (add to the budget) $91,528. Remaining balance is earmarked for Crozet Streetscape Phase II Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures Estimate FY 13 Encumbrance Estimate FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated Return Estimated Liquidation Description Stormwater TMDL Study Future $130,640.14 $0.00 $0.00 $130,640.14 $125,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Project initiation postponed due to State delaying both guidance and deadlines; State deadline is now July 1, 2014 Street lights Future $35,231.74 $0.00 $0.00 $35,231.74 $35,231.74 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the design and installation of streetlights on US250 West at the Clover Lawn/Harris Teeter/Cory Farms Subdivision to address traffic and pedestrian issues. Alternatively, these funds may be needed to address unforeseen priority lighting issues that may arise in FY 14. Sunridge Road Complete $6,696.42 $35.25 $0.00 $6,661.17 $6,696.42 $0.00 $0.00 The project is substantially complete. The remainnig funds will specifically be used for maintenance or to repair any damage until the road is accepted by VDoT. As-Built plans are being prepared in- house. Goal is have road accepted into the State System by the end of August 2013. Voting Machine Replacements Start FY 14 $305,175.77 $0.00 $0.00 $305,175.77 $305,175.77 $0.00 $0.00 The purchase of the voting machines is in-progress and expected to be complete in August 2015. The scheduled phase of purchases will beginin July/August of 2013 for use in absentee voting in November 2013 general election. If the system works well, plan to purchase additional optical scan voting machines for use in all 28 regular precincts. 21 Total Projects $8,175,076.22 $916.50 $0.00 $8,174,159.72 $7,907,302.74 $50,000.00 $266,445.00 Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures Estimate FY 13 Encumbrance Estimate FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated Return Estimated Liquidation Description No Expenditure-Opportunity Rivanna Master Plan Inactive $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports further development of Old Mill Trail and other contengencies but currently no specific projects are identified. Summary $49,966,680.82 $15,970,087.79 $7,769,297.54 $26,227,295.49 $22,746,781.87 $217,789.62 $645,884.61 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Courts Study Update SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Courts Study Results Update STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis and Henry PRESENTER (S): Trevor Henry LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The County contracted with PSA-Dewberry, Inc. to conduct a needs assessment and to develop renovation and/or new building options for the provision of court facilities, to include the Circuit, General District and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Districts Courts, in order to assist the County in determining its next step in addressing the space needs for the courts. At its February 6, 2013 meeting, the Board received the results of the study and PSA-Dewberry’s draft report. The report detailed three options studied by the consultants, including scope, design concept, pros/cons, and conceptual square foot cost estimates. The Board generally favored the option to remain downtown, but noted concerns about the lack of parking. The Board directed staff to meet with the key courts stakeholders on the project to confirm the timeline for necessary improvements and to initiate discussions with the City on the disposition of the jointly owned Levy Building and options for improved parking to accommodate the courts remaining downtown. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs. DISCUSSION: A follow-up meeting with the consultants and key stakeholders (Judges, Commonwealth Attorney, Sheriff, Court Clerks, County Executive, etc.) occurred on March 28, 2013. See Attachment A for the minutes of that meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to better understand current security and operational issues and the sense of urgency to move the courts renovation project forward. Staff reviewed the study process and findings, reviewed the two primary options, and discussed the potential phasing of the project and the likely CIP process timeline. There was unanimous agreement among the courts stakeholders that to remain downtown is the only viable option to avoid significant disruptions to all court functions and efficiencies that would occur if any portion of the courts were to be located off-site. Further, there was strong agreement of the stakeholders to act as soon as possible to address the current operational constraints. Staff anticipates that it may take up to eight years to complete all phases of this CIP project from the time initial design funding is authorized. Staff will report in more detail the results of this meeting and overview the expected timeline for completion of all phases at the May 1, 2013 Board meeting. BUDGET IMPACT: The total budget impact will be dependent on which option the Board chooses to pursue. RECOMMENDATIONS: No action is needed by the Board at this time. Staff is continuing to work with the City on disposition of the Levy properties and the development of a parking solution. Staff will provide an update on the outcome of these discussions as well as a detailed timeline and schedule of probable cost to complete the project at a future Board meeting. Assuming discussions with the City are successful, staff will bring back requests for appropriations for property acquisition and design services associated with early phases of the project. ATTACHMENTS: A – Minutes from the 28 March 2013 Stakeholder Meeting Return to agenda 1 Trevor Henry From:Trevor Henry Sent:Monday, April 08, 2013 2:27 PM To:Diane Mullins; Cheryl Higgins; Denise Lunsford; wgb8329@comcast.net; J. E. "Chip" Harding; Debra Shipp; T.D. Layman; 'jbeard@cha.idc.viginial.gov'; 'jlsnook@snookandhaughey.com' Cc:pstewart@courts.state.va.us; Stacey Trader; Tom Foley; Bill Letteri; Larry Davis; Marsha Davis; Bower, Meg; Doug Walker; Montie Breeden; Beight, Jim L.; 'David Puckett' Subject:Court Study Update Mtg. - March 28th - MINUTES Attachments:Albemarle_Courts_Study_stakeholdermtg_28March13_Presentation.pdf Importance:High Categories:[Local Inbox/Work/Projects/Local Gov/Courts] Tom, et al. Thanks again for adjusting your schedules to meet on March 28th to discuss the future of the courts. As mentioned by Bill in a previous email I’m providing a summary of the meeting below and have attached a .pdf of the PowerPoint presentation used by Staff and the consultants to walk through the study results. Also, we have the architects conceptual test fit boards at our office for future reference. The following personnel attended at the meeting: Representing the Court: Judge Higgins, Judge Barkley, Commonwealth Attorney Lunsford, Debbi Shipp (Clerk of the court), TD Layman (Sherriff’s Office) Representing Court Functions: James Beard (Public Defenders Office), Lloyd Snook (Bar Association) Representing County staff: Tom Foley (County Exec), Bill Letteri (Assistant County Exec), Larry Davis (County Attorney), Trevor Henry (OFD), Montie Breeden (OFD) Study Consultants: Jim Beight (PSA-Dewberry), Meg Bower (PSA-Dewberry), Dave Puckett (FPW Architects) AGENDA 1.Purpose of Meeting/State of Affairs 2.Process/Findings 3.Options/Test Fits 4.Potential Phasing 5.CIP Process/Potential Timeline 6.Discussion/Comments 7.Wrap up Notes from the Meeting: Mr. Foley led off the meeting stating the overall purpose was to ensure the Courts key stakeholders and Staff were operating off the same assumptions regarding urgency of action for the courts planning. Tom provided a summary of why the county commissioned the study, which has provided an assessment of current conditions, a forecast of future needs and potential site options to meet the long-term vision of the Courts. Tom noted some BOS members had communicated to him a sense of less urgency in the timeline and need for action after our Feb BOS meeting based on feedback by Courts staff during that work session. Tom relayed direction from the BOS, which is to better determine urgency of the decision while working with the city to reach an acceptable agreement on the disposition of the Levy Building and providing some relief to the current parking conditions downtown. Tom did note the BOS also is keeping the split option on the table staff in the event the City is unable to meet some of the BOS specific requirements. Meg Bower from PSA-Dewberry lead a discussion on the process the consultants went through to analyze current conditions and a brief description of the methodology of caseload forecasting that drove the space needs. The analysis included some additional sensitivity analysis that looked beyond 2030 and analyzed a population growth to 150K. Needs 2 were described in terms of “court sets” (courtroom, chambers, courtroom holding, jury deliberation, and any other requisite areas) instead of simply courtrooms, and the judicial time was clarified to include both resident judges and visiting judge time. The forecast concluded a need for two Circuit Court sets both now and into the future. The General District Court was determined to need two court sets now, with the future forecast either staying at two (with higher utilization) or growing to three. Jim Beight from PSA-Dewberry walked through the “test fit” process of the Downtown and Split Options. Due to some of the constraints of the existing conditions of the Historic Court House, the consultants conducted a deeper analysis of the site as part of the test fit process to ensure all components of the Court sets and three paths of circulation could be met. Their findings confirmed the Historic Court house and existing annex could contain the necessary functions for two Circuit Court sets, Clerk’s office and proper separation of uses (Judiciary, Public, Defendants). In either scenario (Remain Downtown option or Split Option), the Historic Courthouse and existing annex are planned to be renovated for two Circuit Court Sets. In the downtown option, it is envisioned the Levy Building (Old Opera House) would be renovated to Support the Commonwealth Attorney’s office and its rear addition would be demolished with a new wing constructed for adding two to three court sets for the General District Court. The study assumed full build out which included shell space for a future court set. After some discussion it was agreed on Two Court sets would likely be needed at the 2030 timeframe (one resident and one to be used by visiting judge(s) as currently done), with the potential of needing one additional court set in the long-term future. There was doubt state funding would support the third Judgeship through a dedicated resident judge; regardless, if caseload increases, the courtroom would be needed. The Split option has the same renovation of the Historic Court for Circuit Court needs and assumes a new construction project at the county’s Millcreek property for the General District Court and Sherriff’s office. The Split option would need further analysis of where to locate the Commonwealth attorney. David Puckett (FPW Architects) – led a discussion of potential phasing for the two options. The first option would be an Incremental Phasing of the Downtown scenario which provides the most immediate relief to the most taxed groups (CA, Circuit Ct Clerk, Land Records), but may have issues related to adjacent construction activities requiring either tolerance to noise or premium construction at night. The phasing scenario is as follows: First step requires design and renovation of the Levy Opera house for the relocation of the Commonwealth Attorney. Once the CA office is vacated and relocated, the basement of the Historic courthouse could be renovated to allow the relocation of the Circuit Court Clerk and records to their permanent location. Second step is the demolition of the Levy rear addition and construction of the new General District court and Clerk’s office. Third step is the renovation of the Historic Court house and annex, and re-occupancy by Circuit Court. The second option proposed is essentially two big projects, Dave presented the split option. Design and construction of new General District courthouse at the proposed Millcreek site. Move the Gen Dist Court, Clerk and Sherriff’s office to Millcreek. A solution to keep the CA downtown will need to be determined, possibly renovation of the Levy Opera House, other leased space or relocate to the now vacated Sherriff’s office Renovate the historic Court for Circuit court use as described above. Trevor provided a review of the CIP process and stressed the importance of getting the BOS to a decision point to all direction to staff to initiate the CIP request. Trevor reviewed a potential timeline that showed the major design efforts and construction efforts taking four + years to get the first phase of the project completed and up to 8 years to complete all phases. Discussion points: Unanimous consensus among the Courts stakeholders to remain downtown as the only viable option without significant disruptions to all court functions and efficiencies if any portion of the courts were to be located off-site. 3 Lloyd Snook suggested the possibility of exploring a collaborative solution with the City for ensuring full utilization of whatever is built. He mentioned that the City is likely to be exploring options for expansion during the same 20-year window. It was commented that the City Circuit Court has expansion capabilities on their current site. Judge Barkley commented and questioned about the ability to share resources with the City Gen Dist court. He also strongly recommended staff look at short-term solutions, such as temporary renovation of space in Levy, to alleviate current space constraints at the Historic Court Complex. . He also emphasized the simplicity of providing space for his operation during a “swing” period.” Judge Higgins and CA Lunsford expressed surprise the BOS left the Feb 6th meeting with any thought of lack of urgency to move the project forward. CA Lunsford also expressed displeasure over the delay in seeing the preliminary draft report, which was dated late Aug 2012, and the general lack of communication by staff. Although not discussed, it should be noted the report was not finalized until Jan 2013 in preparation for the Feb BOS meeting. Several of the chapters were not finalized until the Dec timeframe. Judge Higgins discussed the need for better communication from Staff on the project, especially when materials will be going back to the BOS. Debbie Shipp questioned the need for the full renovation and wondered if less costly options might be discovered allowing for relief of current operational conditions but not the full $40Mil +project or at least consider phasing it over a longer period. Deputy Layman said from the Sherriff’s perspective one location is the preference, whether downtown or in the county to maintain more efficient Sherriff operations in support of the courts operations. Tom ended the discussion confirming that Staff will be working with the City to resolve the issues related to parking and Levy disposition per the direction of the BOS but felt that we had accomplished the purpose of the meeting to confirm the urgency of action with Key stakeholders. He emphasized the desire for collaborative teamwork moving forward between the County and the court family. Next steps will include continued discussions/negotiations with the City and providing an update to the BOS at an upcoming meeting (Date TBD) confirming the urgency of action to move forward. Respectfully submitted, Trevor Trevor Henry Director, Office of Facilities Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road, Room 228 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 T (434) 872-4501 ext. 7942 F (434) 972-4091 C (434) 284-1112 thenry@albemarle.org 4 From:Diane Mullins [mailto:DMULLINS@albemarle.org] Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:36 AM To:Cheryl Higgins; Denise Lunsford; wgb8329@comcast.net; J. E. "Chip" Harding; Debra Shipp; T.D. Layman Cc:pstewart@courts.state.va.us; Stacey Trader; Tom Foley; Bill Letteri; Larry Davis; Trevor Henry; Marsha Davis; Bower, Meg Subject:REMINDER: Court Study Update Mtg. - March 28th Importance:High Reminder: Court Study Update Meeting w/consultants: Date: Thursday, March 28th Time: 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Location: Circuit Court Jury Room Agenda: Attached Diane B. Mullins County Executive'sOffice County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Phone: (434)296-5841, ext. 3402 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Economic Vitality Plan Quarterly Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Update on Major Activities of the Economic Vitality Action Plan, Including Economic Indicators STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Davis and Allshouse; Ms. Catlin and Ms. Stimart, S. PRESENTER (S): Ms. Catlin and Mr. Allshouse LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Board adopted an Economic Vitality Action Plan (“Plan”) on August 4, 2010 following extensive public discussion and review. That plan established a schedule for staff to provide quarterly reports to the Board on staff’s progress and activities related to the Plan. Staff will present the second quarterly report (January – March, 2013) of the Plan’s third year of implementation at this meeting. This will be the last quarterly report prior to a final report upon completion of the Plan this fall. The Board’s next discussion on the Economic Vitality Action Plan currently scheduled for July, 2013 will focus on the FY 13 – 17 Strategic Plan goal regarding establishing an ongoing economic development function for the County. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 3 – Promote Economic Vitality DISCUSSION: Attachment A provides a comprehensive three year work plan that outlines all the strategies and actions contained in the Plan for each goal, along with the status of those activities and next steps required to complete the Plan by September, 2013, as called for in the initial three year timetable. Many of the actions are ongoing in nature and will not be “completed” per se but will be integrated into the established economic development program as components of that program. Objective 1 - Improve Business Climate and Image Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter: Co-sponsored the Virginia Economic Development Authority’s (VEDA) Spring Conference with the City of Charlottesville Economic Development Office, implemented Phase 2 website improvements focused on target industries, participated in Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development (CVPED) rebranding. Next Steps: Continued partnership/outreach. Objective 2 - Simplify and Create Certainty - Continued regulatory reform Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter: Implemented legislative review process improvements, continued drop-in hours and ongoing training partnership with the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce. Next Steps: Continued assessment of development review improvement opportunities. Objective 3 - Support Quality Job Opportunities Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter: Achieved Albemarle First visitation goal, cosponsored C’ville Start-up Weekend Edu, partnering on Virginia Bio educational summit, teaching session for Community Investment Collaborative (CIC). Next Steps: Continued focus on workforce development and target market outreach as appropriate. Objective 4 - Expand Industrial Land Options Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter: Adopted zoning text amendments to modernize uses and increase flexibility in industrial and commercial districts, Planning Commission work session on complete Comprehensive Plan update. Next Steps: Comprehensive Plan update to come to the Board, voluntary rezoning effort to be initiated, market expanded location possibilities to commercial brokers and appropriate businesses. AGENDA TITLE: Economic Vitality Plan Quarterly Report May 1, 2013 Page 2 Objective 5 - Promote Rural Economy/Tourism Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter: Launched second year of Monticello Artisan Trail and Presidents Passport tourism program, sponsored local food/agriculture portion of the Tom Tom Festival, supported 2013 Taste of Monticello Wine Trail Festival and Monticello Cup competition . Next Steps: Continued focus on appropriate rural area economy initiatives. Data reporting As stated in the Plan, it is critical that the County regularly monitor and assess the economy and the local business climate in order to proactively and effectively promote economic vitality. The most recent quarterly data is included in Attachment B. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no immediate budget impact associated with this item. RECOMMENDATIONS: No action is required by the Board related to this item. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Economic Vitality Action Plan Three Year Work Plan Attachment B – Quarterly Data Return to agenda 1 Economic Vitality Action Plan /Work Plan - August, 2010 – August, 2013 Goal/Objective/Strategy Status/Outcomes Notes /Next Steps Goal 1 - IMPROVE THE COUNTY’S BUSINESS CLIMATE AND IMAGE 1. Expand Communications and Outreach to the Business Community  Develop and implement a plan to raise awareness and promote County efforts with the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP)  Maintain active participation in Chamber of Commerce and Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED)  Continue outreach program using TJPED prospect proposal system  Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) – - Updates to the Albemarle County Community Profile on the VEDP website. - Several familiarization tours for VEDP staff including available sites in Peter Jefferson Place, University of Virginia Research Park and the Defense Intelligence Agency facility. - Participate in ongoing conversations about new business prospects. - Provided a briefing to 15 VEDP senior managers on the target industry study, along with regional partners from the Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development (CVPED).  Virginia Economic Development Association (VEDA) – - Worked with City economic development staff to co-host the spring 2013 VEDA conference. - Regular attendance at biennial meetings of this group - Serving on existing business retention and expansion task force  Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (VDACS) - Participated in a state-wide agri-business forum to showcase partnership in the Brew Ridge Trail and Monticello Artisan Trail. - Maintain membership with the VA Agricultural Development Officers (VADO).  Virginia Department of Business Assistance (DBA) – - Met with the Director of the DBA, Peter Su, and his staff to discuss the County’s action plan and possible partnerships.  Virginia Bio – - Co-hosted VA Bio Sponsored Bio-tech Financing Workshop - Partnering with the County school division, community stakeholders and Virginia Bio on student mentoring and career exploration in the biotech fields, including Life Sciences Education Summit this spring  Chamber of Commerce – - Met with the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors on several occasions to discuss the County’s action plan. Positive, productive partnerships have been established, regular communication and outreach to state, regional and local partners is envisioned as an essential continuing component of an ongoing economic development program. Exploring new partnerships with GenEdge Alliance, VA Center for Innovative Technology (CIT) and DBA 2 - Active members of the Chamber agribusiness and economy and local government roundtables - Assisted with/sponsor of Chamber’s Minority Business Enterprises Conference  Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development - Active members of CVPED economic partners group, including involvement in recently completed rebranding program - Provided increased funding to CVPED  Free Enterprise Forum – - Met with the Free Enterprise Forum members on several occasions to discuss the County’s action plan.  Charlottesville Business Innovation Council (CBIC) - Serving on the Board of Directors and actively supporting CBIC programs. - Assisted with organizing the CBIC Annual Awards Ceremony to recognize entrepreneurial excellence; - Sponsored the People’s Choice Navigator Award for significant leadership in the local or regional entrepreneurial or high-tech community. 2. Increase the Visibility of the County’s Business Development Staff  Make business development facilitator part of the County Executive staff  Enhance presence of economic development info on the web  County Executive’s Office of Community Partnerships expanded (renamed Office of Community and Business Partnerships) to encompass Economic Vitality Action Plan  Business Development Facilitator transitioned to Economic Development Facilitator and relocated to Office of Community and Business Partnerships  Launched updated Economic Development website– significantly expanded economic development website presence and functionality including new logo/visual identity for our efforts  Phase Two website improvements launched May 1 with specific focus on target industries Identified actions accomplished, need to continue focus on updates to the website as part of ongoing economic development program. 3 3. Improve Interaction Between Community Development Staff and the Business Community  Begin regular presentations to staff and the public  Provide business community a quarterly update of emerging and current development issues  As part of pre-aps, assign staff member to serve as single point of contact  Continue routine survey of applicants  Establish more standard notification process for proposed ordinance changes  Launched the Plan with a listening tour that included face to face meetings with 17 local, regional and state partners.  Quarterly roundtable sessions with staff and the business community focusing on small business issues, UVA partnerships, school/business partnerships and industrial sites and buildings among other topics  Established Single Point of Contact program  Business Appreciation Week Recognition – highlight local business and other economic development partners for the Board of Supervisors  Better Business Challenge – co-sponsor of year-long competition among 106 area businesses to increase efficiency and sustainability in six key areas: energy, water, transportation, waste, purchasing and leadership.  Participating in development of the Piedmont Council of the Arts (PCA) Cultural Plan .  Worked with the Board of Supervisors and the Economic Development Authority to establish new fee arrangement and funding priorities for the EDA. Identified actions accomplished, need to continue focus on regular interactions with the business community as part of ongoing economic development program. Ongoing involvement with the EDA regarding budget development and oversight is a new responsibility for the economic development staff. Goal 2 - SIMPLIFY/CREATE CERTAINTY IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS 1. Consider amendments to the development ordinances to reduce complexity of plan approval  Hold a work session with BOS on changes to process for ARB review  Present recommended changes to the BOS for ministerial applications  Present recommended changes to the BOS for legislative applications  Improved and simplified application procedures for entrance corridor development, with new Architectural Review Board (ARB) process improvements  Adopted and implemented the legislative review process improvements.  Adopted and Implemented the site plan portion of the ministerial review process improvements.  Simplified and improved the sign review and approval process.  Adopted a process for handling special exceptions.  Approved a Priority Review Process for qualified target industries, successfully implemented the new process for target industry project that met applicant time constraints.  Approved County Code amendments to Tourism Lodging Regulations to permit additional lodging possibilities.  Adopted an ordinance amendment to reduce the fees and approval time for home-based business applications.  Approved an amendment to the farm winery zoning regulations to use a decibel noise standard; this allows vineyards to self-regulate event activity and reduces staff enforcement. All actions in this objective have been accomplished, continued focus on opportunities to improve development review is recommended. 4 2. Assist small enterprises in reaching compliance with County development standards  Provide staff assistance for small businesses that have no experience with development review  Produced a small business toolkit to assist small business owners who are interested in starting, relocating, or expanding their businesses in Albemarle County.  Established relationship with the Central Virginia Business Owners group.  Established regular drop-in opportunities for entrepreneurs to meet with economic development staff to address their business growth questions.  Providing regular training in partnership with Chamber of Commerce on doing business with Albemarle County Initial steps in providing assistance are underway, continued focus on opportunities to increase assistance is recommended as part of ongoing economic development program. Goal 3 - STRATEGICALLY WORK WITH PARTNERS ON CAREER LADDER EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES 1. Promote and support small business growth and development  Work with partners to identify and address existing business needs and implement regularly scheduled local business panels  Expanded “Albemarle Business First” business retention program to help the County identify issues, increase communication and improve its overall business climate for existing companies - Developed strategic outreach list of 500 companies focusing on target industries and other strategic enterprises - Established goal of 50 companies in 2010, 75 in 2011, 100 in 2012, met all annual goals  Hosted SCORE workshops  Hosted SBDC workshops, County staff serves on the SBDC Advisory Board  C-Ville Central – Hosted program roll-out  Community Investment Collaborative (CIC) – hosted classes, regularly teach class module on local permit requirements  Alternative Site Foreign-Trade Zone – worked with Culpeper County to join their Foreign Trade Zone which will provide significant advantages to Albemarle County companies that import goods from out of the country that are subject to tariff.  Co-sponsored 2 recent Cville Start-upWeekend programs, a compressed entrepreneur business program connecting entrepreneurs to venture capitalists (per a recommendation from the Target Markets rpt). Initial steps in supporting small business growth and development are underway, continued focus on opportunities to increase assistance is recommended as part of ongoing economic development program. 2. Promote targeted business and investment  Work with broad-based task force to determine the region’s target enterprise sectors  Create a plan for developing workforce training programs tied to  Target Industry Study - Worked with Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development (CVPED) to identify and secure funding and manage the regional Target Industry Study - Target industries were identified and adopted by the Board for Initial actions are completed, recommend focus on workplace training tied to target markets, talent development and recruitment, and targeted 5 target enterprises or key sectors  Review peer jurisdiction’s policies and practices in attracting targeted business and investment  Continue to support local job fairs, showcase our local workforce talent and corporate partners  Using existing tools, provide an online feedback loop for policy makers Albemarle County - Working with regional partners and CVPED staff on implementation strategies. - Developing approaches to support identified target industry clusters, including holding the second meeting of the newly established Biotech Council.  CVPED branding program/increased funding  Board of Supervisors/School Board Business Leaders Roundtable to focus on local workplaces and workforce issues and needs in the community and identify opportunities to strengthen community/business partnerships.  MicroAire purchased the former USPS building to expand its operations with assistance from the Governors Opportunity Fund and the County’s Economic Opportunity Fund.  Provide promotional support to local job fairs, on behalf of the Workforce Center, new employers and the City’s Annual Job Fair marketing outreach to desired industries including start ups, expansions and relocations where appropriate as part of ongoing economic development program. 3. Connect opportunities with residents  Work with partners to determine demand occupations for training/retraining dislocated workers, low income adults and youth populations  Market local opportunities to qualified resident workforce  Align targeted enterprises and demand occupations with student education and participation  Working with community partners to plan a Virginia Biotech educational symposium to focus on developing workforce and career opportunities in the local life sciences industry.  Supporting entrepreneurial opportunities through involvement in Community Investment Collaborative and Start Up Weekend Edu (Education).  Serving on Community Advisory Board for the Monticello High School Health and Sciences Academy.  Increased funding to Small Business Development Center (SBDC).  Helped organize and run the 2012 Tech Tour which involved 400 students (including 120 middle schoolers) from 21 area schools which was the largest group ever involved in this activity – 63 local high tech companies provided 81 separate tours. Initial actions are completed, recommend focus on workplace training tied to target markets, talent development and recruitment, and targeted marketing outreach to desired industries including start ups, expansions and relocations where appropriate as part of ongoing economic development program. Goal 4 - CONSISTENT WITH GOALS OF COMP PLAN, REMOVE OBSTACLES AND EXPAND OPTIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND USERS 1. Consider amendments to the County zoning ordinance  Bring proposed change to the BOS for consideration  Approved Industrial districts’ performance standards.  Approved Zoning Text Amendment to modernize uses and provide flexibility in the County’s industrial and commercial districts All identified actions are completed, recommend that staff monitor progress and focus on marketing new location opportunities to appropriate 6 industrial clients, including target industries, as part of ongoing economic development program. 2. Consider options for increasing industrial inventory within areas designated as development areas in the Comp Plan  Initiate a county wide rezoning to LI for RA and R-1 zoned properties in the Dev areas that are designated as industrial use  Continue pursuing strategies to step the conversion of properties zoned LI to non-core industrial uses  As part of future master plans and Land Use Plan updates, consider designating more land within existing dev areas for industrial uses  As part of current effort to update Comp Plan, consider a proposed modification of interstate interchange policy  Site Selection Fact Sheets – developing marketing fact sheets for available industrial buildings and sites  Tentatively scheduled a Planning Commission public hearing on complete Comprehensive Plan update, including additional LI land designations, on March 5, 2013.  Considering comprehensive voluntary rezoning for LI land uses following the adoption of the zoning text amendments and Comprehensive Plan update  Industrial district ZTA modifications included additional protection from by right office use conversion in defined instances Majority of identified actions completed or underway, major outstanding item is the Comprehensive Plan update which impacts the remaining actions. Continued focus on the adequacy of LI inventory, particularly for accommodating target industries, is recommended as part of ongoing economic development program. Goal 5 - WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO PROMOTE LOCAL AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY AND TOURISM AS PART OF COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM FOR RURAL ECONOMY 1. Assess current programs and investments in agriculture, local agricultural industry and tourism  Conduct a series of roundtables with stakeholders and present findings to the BOS  Held roundtables to review agritourism activities and emerging trends in the state and to solicit feedback for the Comp Plan update process with specific focus on agribusiness possibilities, insights are being addressed as a part of the Comprehensive Plan update. Initial roundtables completed, regular communication should be a component of the ongoing economic development program. 2. Evaluate and refine goals and objectives for agriculture, local agricultural industry and tourism  Include consideration of gathered info in updates of Comp Plan, Strategic Plan and agreement with the CACVB  Feedback from the roundtables has been factored in recommendations included in the Comprehensive Plan update.  Feedback from the roundtables has informed the development of the Identified actions are completed, continued focus on appropriate rural area economic 7 Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB) Strategic Marketing Plan which focuses more effort and resources on promoting the community’s tourism assets, including agritourism and other attractions in the County. opportunities is recommended as part of ongoing economic development program. 3. Identify target areas to more aggressively promote in support of agriculture, local agricultural industry and tourism  Establish specific strategies and action items for promoting and supporting agriculture, local agricultural industry and tourism  Monticello Artisans Trail – Launching second year of the program which after successful first year resulted in approximately 100 active sites on the Trail.  Presidents Passport Cooperative Marketing Program – assisted CACVB, Monticello and Montpelier with a cooperative marketing program designed to encourage tourism to the greater Charlottesville area, program is beginning its second year this spring.  Winebloggers Conference – Albemarle County teamed with the CACVB, Monticello and the Omni to host a press conference and to pursue other publicity initiatives to promote the annual Winebloggers Conference in July, 2011 in the community.  Monticello Wine Trail – led a strategic planning retreat with members of the Monticello Wine Trail, worked with Monticello Wine Trail businesses to plan the 2013 Wine Festival and Monticello Cup wine competition.  State Winery Signage Program – unveiling of a new Virginia wine region sign program aimed at attracting more visitors to Virginia wineries; first signs in the state designate our local Monticello American Viticultural Area.  Agritourism: It’s More Than a Farm Tour- The County, the Small Business Development Center, VA Tourism Corporation, and the Va Tech Agricultural Extension co-hosted an information and training session for local residents who are interested in exploring the possibilities of developing a farming-tourism experience.  The Local Food Hub - The County co-sponsored the 2011 and 2012 Community Food Awards to support Local Food Hub operations.  USDA Specialty Crop Competitive Grant – Awarded a USDA Specialty Crop Competitive Grant in the amount of $30,000 to support further study into the production and expansion of hard cider in this region and across the commonwealth, supported Virginia Cider Week with cideries in Albemarle County leading efforts for marketing and event planning.  Locavore Expo at Tom Tom Festival – sponsored the Locavore Expo to celebrate and educate the community about local food production and put spotlight on area’s local farmers and food innovators. Identified actions are completed, continued focus on appropriate rural area economic opportunities is recommended as part of ongoing economic development program. 8  Led first annual Albemarle County local Agribusiness Marketing Conference, in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, which “sold out” at 60 attendees.  Central Virginia livestock - In partnership with local Ext office, created listserv and are releasing a survey to measure baseline conditions and industry needs Return to exec summary Albemarle County Economic Vitality Indicators -- Quarterly Data Compiled April 15, 2013 Same Qtr.Same Qtr.Same Qtr.Time Period Beginning Ending 2012-13 4 Yrs. Ago 3 Yrs. Ago 2 Yrs. Ago Comparison Quarter Quarter Change Tax Revenue *Sales Tax 3,050,739 2,834,355 3,224,167 Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 3,088,736 3,435,602 + 11.2% Food & Beverage Tax 1,534,679 1,181,493 1,650,799 Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 1,437,895 1,550,380 + 7.8% Transient Occupancy Tax 146,019 125,095 46,806 Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 129,808 142,861 + 10.1% Jobs *Unemployment Rate 3.4%5.2%5.0%Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 4.5%4.3%- 0.2 pp *Total Number of Jobs 49,826 48,205 48,354 Q3 CY 11 & Q3 CY 12 49,121 48,808 - 0.6% Workforce Center Clients Q1 CY 2012 & Q1 CY 13 4,718 5,066 +7.4% General Business Activity *Small Business Development Center Clients Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 26 18 - 8 Small Business Development Center Training Participants Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 21 25 + 4 Real Estate Market Number of Single Family Homes for Sale Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 574 513 - 61 Monthly Average Number of Single Family Homes Sold Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 42.33 44.67 + 2.34 *Number of Months Supply of Unsold Single Family Homes Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 13.56 11.49 - 2.07 Mos. FHFA Home Price Index for Charlottesville MSA Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 212.79 205.79 - 3.28% Residential Foreclosure Rate per 10,000 Properties Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 4.81 3.20 - 33.47% Albemarle County Economic Vitality Indicators -- Quarterly Data (Cont.) Compiled April 15, 2013 Time Period Beginning Ending 2012-2013 Comparison Quarter Quarter Change Development Activity *$ Value of New Commercial Building Permits Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 16.080 M 11.576 M - 28.0% *$ Value of New Residential Building Permits Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 24.236 M 27.373 M + 12.9% Number of New Residential Building Permits Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 90 83 - 7 Annual Data Beginning Ending 2011-2012 Year Year Change *Total Number of Business Licenses CY 11 & CY 12 4,395 4,425 + 0.68% Return to exec summary Note: Total number of jobs includes full-time, part-time, and temporary positions. Sources: Workforce Center Clients figure comes from Heather Foor, Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development. Small Business Development Center data is supplied by Nora Gillespie, Small Business Development Center. All other figures are reported by Steven A. Allshouse, Manager of Economic Analysis and Forecasting, Albemarle County Department of Finance. Memorandum ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Members, Board of Supervisors FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk DATE: April 23, 2013 SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions Vacancy and Reappointment List ______________________________________________________________________________ Attached, please find an updated listing of vacancies for boards and commissions through April 23, 2013. Appointments that need to be made at this time are to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, Historic Preservation Committee and Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council. Listed below are the names and term expiration dates of individuals who wish to be appointed and/or reappointed to the respective committees: Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee: One vacancy Robert Drake John Gobble Historic Preservation Committee Peter Wiley, term expires June 4, 2013 Steven Meeks, term expires June 4, 2013 Ross Stevens, term expires June 4, 2013 Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council M. Waltine Eubanks, term expires May 31, 2013 Gary Grant, term expires May 31, 2013 View vacancy list Return to agenda MEMBER TERM EXPIRES NEW TERM EXPIRES WISH TO BE RE-APPOINTED? DISTRICT IF MAGISTERIAL APPOINTMENT Acquisitions of Conservation Easements (ACE)Bill Edgerton 8/1/2012 8/1/2015 No Advertised, No applications recv'd Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Steve Murray 4/17/2012 4/17/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Mark Gorlinsky 5/5/2010 4/17/2014 Resigned Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council David van Roijen 4/17/2013 4/17/2017 Ineligible Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Christopher Dumler 11/21/2012 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Burton Webb 11/21/2012 Deceased Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Terry Rephann 7/8/2012 7/8/2014 No Advertised, 2 applications recv'd Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Following application received: Robert Drake John Gobble Historic Preservation Committee Peter Wiley 6/4/2013 6/4/2016 Yes Historic Preservation Committee Steven Meeks 6/4/2013 6/4/2016 Yes Historic Preservation Committee Ross Stevens 6/4/2013 6/4/2016 Yes Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council M. Waltine Eubanks 5/31/2013 5/31/2015 Yes Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council Gary Grant 5/31/2013 5/31/2015 Yes Natural Heritage Committee John Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No Advertised, No applications recv'd Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No Natural Heritage Committee Phil Stokes 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No Natural Heritage Committee DeMellon Forest 9/30/2012 9/30/2016 No Natural Heritage Committee Jim Byrom 9/30/2012 Resigned Natural Heritage Committee Christopher Dumler 9/30/2013 Resigned Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County Advertised, No applications recv'd Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Vincent Day 12/31/2013 Resigned Workforce Investment Board Sue Goldman 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 No Recommendations to come from TJPED Revised 04/23/2013 Return to memo Draft: March 12, 2013 ORDINANCE NO. 13-2(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE II, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2 -202, Compensation of Board of Supervisors, as follows: CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE II. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Sec. 2-202 Compensation of board of supervisors. The salary of the board of supervisors shall be fourteen thousand eight hundred thirty-four ($14,834.00) fifteen thousand one hundred thirty-one ($15,131.00) for each board member effective July 1, 2012 2013. In addition to the regular salary, the vice -chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired and the chairman shall receive an annual stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00). (6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; 7-6-88; 6-7-89; Ord. of 6-13-90; Ord. of 8-1-90; Ord. of 8-7-91; Ord. of 7-1-92; Ord. No. 95-2(1), 6-14-95; Ord. No. 98-2(1), 6-17-98; Code 1988, § 2-2.1; Ord. 98- A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. No. 99-2(1), 5-5-99; Ord. No. 00-2(1), 6-7-00; Ord. 01-2(2), 6-6-01; Ord. 02-2(2), 5-1-02; Ord. 03-2(1), 6-4-03; Ord. 04-2(1), 6-2-04; Ord. 05-2(1), 6-1-05, Ord. 06-2(1), 6-7-06; Ord. 07-2(1), 6-6-07; Ord. 08-2(2), 6-4-08; Ord. 11-2(1), 5-4-11; Ord. 12-2(1), 5-2-12) State law reference--Compensation of board of supervisors, Va. Code § 15.2-1414.3. This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2013. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________. Return to agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Request to grant sanitary sewer and water easements across portions of County-owned property – Old Trail Park (TMP 55E-01--H) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to consider granting water and sewer easements to the Albemarle County Service Authority across portions of Old Trail Park (TMP 55E-01--H) to provide sanitary sewer and water service to nearby properties in the Old Trail Subdivision STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Davis, Herrick, and Crickenberger LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has requested that the County grant easements for the installation of sanitary sewer and water lines across portions of County-owned property designated as Parcel ID 055E0-01-00- 000H0, located in the Old Trail Subdivision. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs DISCUSSION: There are two proposed Deeds of Easement. This property on which the easements are requested was conveyed to the County for use as a public park. The specific location of the proposed easements is set forth in the attached Plats (Attachments B1 and B2). The water and sewer lines will be buried within the easements and there will be no above ground facilities. The easements will not interfere with the use of the property as a public park. Piedmont Senior Living Real Estate, LLC, a neighboring property owner, is also a party to the first proposed Deed (Attachment A1) because a proposed easement also crosses its property. March Mountain Properties I, LLC, a neighboring property owner, is also a party to the second proposed Deed (Attachment A2) because a proposed easement also crosses its property. Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of this interest in County- owned real property. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no budget impact. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that, after receiving public comment, the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) approving the ACSA easements and authorizing the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney, the Deeds of Easement (Attachment A) on behalf of the County. ATTACHMENTS A1 – Deed of Easement between Piedmont Senior Living Real Estate, LLC and the County and ACSA A2 – Deed of Easement between March Mountain Properties I, LLC and the County and ACSA B1 – Plat for A1 Deed B2 – Plat for A2 Deed C – Resolution Return to agenda ATTACHMENT A1 ATTACHMENT A1 ATTACHMENT A1 ATTACHMENT A1 ATTACHMENT A1 ATTACHMENT A1 ATTACHMENT A1 ATTACHMENT A2 {#12772-3} 1 Albemarle County TMP# 055E0-01-00-000G0 TMP# 055E0-01-00-000H0 TMP# 055E0-01-00-000A1 TMP# 055E0-01-11-01600 PREPARED BY: Woods Rogers PLC This DEED OF EASEMENT, made this 16th day of April 2013, by and between MARCH MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES I, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, first Grantor (“MMPI”); MARCH MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, second Grantor (“MMP”); COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, third Grantor (the “County” and collectively with MMPI and MMP, the “Grantors”); and ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY, Grantee, whose address is 168 Spotnap Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (the “Authority”). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Authority has requested and the Grantors have agreed to grant the Authority various water and sanitary sewer line easements located in and around Block 11 of Old Trail Subdivision, situated in Albemarle County, Virginia, which easements are shown on the following three (3) plats (collectively, the “Plats”): Plat dated October 19, 2012, prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. entitled “Boundary Line Adjustment and Revised Subdivision Plat Old Trail Block 11 White Hall Magisterial District Albemarle County, Virginia” which plat is of record in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 4257, pages 377-388; Plat dated April 5, 2013, prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. entitled “20’ Waterline Easement Old Trail Village Dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority White Hall Magisterial District Albemarle County, Virginia,” which plat is attached hereto and recorded herewith; and Plat dated April 15, 2013, prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., entitled “Easement Plat Showing Water Meter Easement Located on TMP 55E-1-11-16 Block 11 - Old Trail Village Dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority White Hall Magisterial District Albemarle County, Virginia,” which plat is attached hereto and recorded herewith. ATTACHMENT A2 {#12772-3} 2 WHEREAS, as shown on the Plats, the proposed easements cross a portion of the property conveyed to MMPI by deed recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle (the “Clerk’s Office”) in Deed Book 3824, page 335 (the “MMPI Property”); and MMPI is fee simple owner of the said property as of the date hereof; WHEREAS, as shown on the Plats, the proposed easements cross a portion of the property conveyed to MMP by deed recorded in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 2233, page 389 (the “MMP Property”); and MMP is fee simple owner of the said property as of the date hereof; and WHEREAS, as shown on the Plats, the proposed easements cross a portion of the property conveyed to the County by deed recorded in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 3955, page 1 (the “Public Park”); and the County is the fee simple owner of the said property as of the date hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the first and second Grantors do hereby GRANT and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY OF TITLE and the third Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the Albemarle County Service Authority perpetual rights of way and easements to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace and extend water and sanitary sewer lines consisting of pipes and appurtenances thereto, over, under and across the real property of the Grantors located in the White Hall Magisterial District of Albemarle County, Virginia in the Old Trail Subdivision, the location and width of the easements hereby granted and the boundary of the properties being more particularly described on the Plats. ATTACHMENT A2 {#12772-3} 3 The easements hereby granted are shown on the Plats as “20’ Waterline Easement,” “10’ Sanitary Lateral Easement,” “Variable Width Waterline and Sanitary Sewer Easement,” “20’ Sanitary Sewer Easement,” “New Portion of 20’ Waterline Esmt. To Include Fire Hydrant,” and “New Water Meter Easement.” Reference is made to the aforesaid Plats for the exact location and dimension of the permanent easements hereby granted and the property over which the same crosses. The Grantors, their successors or assigns, agree that new trees, shrubs, fences, buildings, overhangs or other improvements or obstructions, except as provided for below, shall not be placed within the easements conveyed herein. The County shall have the right to construct trails and related improvements (“Park Improvements”) within the portions of the easements hereby granted that cross the Public Park. The Grantors, their successors or assigns, shall have the right to construct other utility lines within the easements hereby granted, provided no such lines shall be within five (5) feet horizontally of the water and sewer lines installed hereunder. As a part of these easements, the Authority shall have the right to enter upon the above described properties within the easements for the purpose of installing, constructing, maintaining, repairing, replacing and extending water and sewer lines and appurtenances thereto within such easements, and the right of ingress and egress thereto as reasonably necessary to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace and extend such water and sewer lines. If the Authority is unable to reasonably exercise the right of ingress and egress over the rights -of-way, the Authority shall have the right of ingress and egress over the property of the owner adjacent to the right-of-way. Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within such easements, the Authority agrees to backfill such excavation in a proper and workmanlike manner so as to restore surface conditions ATTACHMENT A2 {#12772-3} 4 as nearly as practical to the same condition as prior to excavation, including restoration of such paved surfaces as may be damaged or disturbed as part of such excavation. The easements provided for herein shall include the right of the Authority to cut any trees, brush and shrubbery, remove obstructions, including Park Improvements, and take other similar action reasonably necessary to provide economical and safe water and sewer line installation, operation and maintenance. Following the removal of any Park Improvements, the County may restore such Park Improvements at its expense, and the Authority shall have no responsibility to the Grantors, their successors or assigns, to replace or reimburse the cost of said trees, brush, shrubbery or obstructions, including Park Improvements, if cut or removed or otherwise damaged. Any and all trees, brush, shrubbery or obstructions cut or removed by the Authority shall be disposed of at the Authority’s expense at a location not within the Public Park, the MMP Property or the MMPI Property, unless the applicable property owner consents in writing to such disposal on its property. The facilities constructed within the permanent easements shall be the property of the Authority which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve and make such changes, alterations and connections to or extensions of its facilities within the boundaries of the permanent easements as are consistent with the purposes expressed herein. SIGNATURE PAGES IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW ATTACHMENT A2 {#12772-3} 5 WITNESS the following signatures and seals: MARCH MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES I, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company By: ________________________________ Name: ________________________________ Title: Manager COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF _____________________to-wit, The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___day of ________ 2013, by _____________________________ as Manager of March Mountain Properties I, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company. _______________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires:______________________ Commission No.:_____________________________ ATTACHMENT A2 {#12772-3} 6 MARCH MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company By: ________________________________ Name: ________________________________ Title: Manager COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF _____________________to-wit, The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___day of ________ 2013, by _____________________________ as Manager of March Mountain Properties, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company. _______________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires:______________________ Commission No.:_____________________________ ATTACHMENT A2 {#12772-3} 7 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By: _________________________________ Name: _________________________________ Title: County Executive APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ County Attorney COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF _____________________to-wit, The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___day of ____________ 2013, by _________________________ on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. _______________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires:______________________ Commission No.:_____________________________ ATTACHMENT A2 {#12772-3} 8 ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY By: ________________________________ Gary O’Connell, Executive Director COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF _____________________to-wit, The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___day of _____________ 2013, by Gary O’Connell, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority. _______________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires:______________________ Commission No.:_____________________________ Return to exec summary ATTACHMENT B1 ATTACHMENT B1 ATTACHMENT B2 ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION APPROVING DEED OF EASEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR SERVICE TO OLD TRAIL SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle owns certain property located in the Old Trail Subdivision (Parcel 055E0-01-00-000H0); and WHEREAS, easements across this County-owned property are necessary for the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) to provide sanitary sewer and water service to the Old Trail Subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the granting of these certain easements to the ACSA, and authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney, two Deeds of Easement with ACSA for sanitary sewer and waterline easements across Parcel 055E0-01-00-000H0. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of _______ to _______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on ______________________. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2013 Budget Amendment in the amount of $12,147,434.00 and approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations #2013086, #2013087, #2013088, #2013089 and #2013090 for local government and school division programs and projects. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri and Davis, and Ms. Allshouse, L. PRESENTER (S): Lori Allshouse LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc. The cumulative total of the FY 2013 appropriations from the time period of April 3, 2012 through May 1, 2013 and itemized below is $12,147,434.00. Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required. STRATEGIC PLAN: Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds. DISCUSSION: The proposed increase of this FY 2013 Budget Amendment totals $12,147,434.00. The estimated expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below: ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES General Fund $ 70,000.00 Special Revenue Funds $ 130,000.00 Capital Improvements Funds $ 11,874,434.00 ECC $ 73,000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 12,147,434.00 ESTIMATED REVENUES Loan Proceeds $ 11,320,373.00 Proffer Revenue $ 550,000.00 General Fund Balance $ 70,000.00 Other Fund Balances $ 207,061.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 12,147,434.00 The budget amendment is comprised of seven (7) separate appropriations as follows, two of which has already been approved by the Board as indicated below: Approved April 3, 2013:  One (1) appropriation (#2013083) totaling $130,000.00 to the EDA for the purpose of funding a short-term loan to the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center; AGENDA TITLE: FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations May 1, 2013 Page 2 Approved April 10, 2013:  One (1) appropriation (#2013085) totaling $73,000.00 for Emergency Communication Center projects. The five (5) appropriations requested for Board approval on May 1, 2013 are as follows:  One (1) appropriation (#2013086) totaling $50,000.00 for the Ivy Fire Station Maintenance Account as required by the terms of the sublease;  One (1) appropriation (#2013087) totaling $4,061.00 to re-appropriate funding for a General Government CIP project;  One (1) appropriation (#2013088) totaling $11,820,373.00 for the purchase of the Rio Road West Property and the required building renovations for a new library to replace the current Northside Library and to provide County storage space;  One (1) appropriation (#2013089) totaling $20,000.00 for salary reclassifications and adjustments; and  One (1) appropriation (#2013090) totaling $50,000.00 for the Cory Farm Greenway Connector project. RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2013 Budget Amendment in the amount of $12,127,434.00 and approval of appropriations #2013086, #2013087, #2013088, #2013089 and #2013090 to provide funds for various local government projects and programs as described in Attachment A. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions Return to agenda Attachment A Appropriation #2013086 $50,000.00 Source: General Fund fund balance $ 50,000.00 This request is to appropriate $50,000.00 of General Fund fund balance for the Ivy Fire Station Maintenance Account to pay for the County’s share of the annual repairs and maintenance of the Ivy Fire Station as required by the terms of the sublease approved by the Board on April 4, 2012. According to the terms of the lease, the County must fund a maintenance account with a balance of $50,000.00 within 30 days of the Com mencement Date and on each anniversary of the Commencement Date. The Commencement Date is anticipated to be May 1, 2013 upon the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Appropriation #2013087 $4,061.00 Source: General Gov’t CIP Fund Balance $ 4,061.00 This request is to appropriate $4,061.00 from the General Government CIP Fund fund balance to support the completion of the Preddy Creek Park project. This portion of funding was appropriated in FY 12 and was expected to support services undertaken in late FY 12. However, the expense was recorded in FY 13; so the funding needs to be re-appropriated to FY 13 to cover the FY 13 expense. The services were for removing a collapsed house on park land at Preddy Creek. Appropriation #2013088 $11,820,373.00 Source: Loan Proceeds $11,320,373.00 Proffer Revenue $ 500,000.00 As described in the Rio Road West Property Acquisition Executive Summary, also on the Board’s May 1 , 2013 agenda, this request is to appropriate $11,208,998 in loan proceeds an d $500,000.00 in Stonefield Proffers for a total appropriation of $11,708,998 to support the purchase of the property and the required building renovations. The intended use for the property would be a new, permanent location for the Northside library and County warehouse/storage space. The new facility would provide approximately 30,00 0 to 37,000 square feet of library space and 20,000 square feet of warehouse space. The immediate funding of the Phllips Buiding Project would allow the project to start design development in FY13/14 and to be completed in FY 14/15. This appropriation request is contingent upon the Board’s approval of the Rio Road West Property acquisition. Appropriation #2013089 $20,000.00 Source: General Fund fund balance $ 20,000.00 This request is to appropriate $37,655.00 in funding from the reclassification pool to various departments for individual reclassifications that occurred throughout FY 13. This portion of the appropriation is a re-allocation of funds and has no impact on the total budget. In addition, the Office of Housing will overexpend its salary budget in FY 13/14 as the result of a payout of unused annual leave when an employee left the County. This request is for $20,000.00 to cover those costs. Appropriation #2013090 $50,000.00 Source: Proffer Revenue $ 50,000.00 This request is to appropriate $50,000.00 in various proffer revenue s (see below) to support the Cory Farm Greenway Connector project. This project includes the construction of a bike/pedestrian trail that will connect various Crozet neighborhoods to Crozet Park, downtown Crozet and Route 250 retail and businesses. The scope includes an easement acquisition, trail and bridge design/development, pedestrian bridge, benches, Kiosk and signage. The project will begin upon approval of this appropriation request and is anticipated to be complete by the fall of 2013. The proffers supporting this project are summarized below. Proffer Interest Total Liberty Hall $6,400.00 $32.22 $6,432.22 Westhall (1.2) $13,000.00 $29.61 $13,029.61 Wickham Pond $30,538.17 $0.00 $30,538.17 Total $49,938.17 $61.83 $50,000.00 Return to exec summary Board‐to‐Board         May, 2013  A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors School Board Considers Budget - The School Board will consider recommended reductions of $589,000 in the division’s 2013-14 funding request at their April 25th meeting. Staff recommendations are expected to include eliminating six FTEs that were proposed for next year, savings from producing an on line curriculum in-house and reductions in projected energy spending. The elimination of the six FTEs would not impact class size. The School Board is expected to vote to approve a balanced budget at this meeting. Strategic Plan Update- On Monday evening, April 22, the school division hosted a public meeting to present the findings of its community outreach meetings and on line surveys about future priorities and goals for the School Board’s consideration of strategic plan revisions this summer. Nearly 2,000 responses were provided by community residents and another 5,600 responses were received from students. The strongest support was for two current strategic goals, preparing students for success in a global community and economy and developing a diverse cadre of high quality teachers, staff and administrators. Problem-solving, communication and critical thinking skills ranked high on the list of respondents. The findings and recommendations from the community outreach process will be reported to the School Board, which will consider revisions to the strategic plan during its retreat in June. Jouett Middle School Accomplishes AVID Demonstration School Application – Jack Jouett Middle School recently was named an AVID Demonstration School by the national AVID program office. There are nearly 5,000 AVID program sites worldwide, and less than three percent of those locations earn Demonstration or model program status. Next month, a delegation from Lynchburg City will visit Jouett to learn about the program and later in the month, the school will host a visiting delegation of educators from Australia. M-Cubed Program to Close Achievement Gap Wins National Recognition for Excellence – The M-cubed program – “Math, Men, Mission” earned the National School Boards Association’s top award for performance excellence among all school divisions in the country with student enrollment between 5,000 and 20,000. The program, now in its fourth year, brings together educators, community mentors, and the private sector on behalf of African-American middle school males, who have had a history of being underrepresented in math honors classes. The program includes a summer math academy, parent workshops, and year-round mentors to enhance academic and life skills. M-cubed is a partnership of The 100 Black Men of Central Virginia, Albemarle County Public Schools, State Farm Insurance, and UVa. More information can be found at: http://schoolboardnews.nsba.org/2013/04/asbj-announces-2013-magna-award-winners/ and on the school division’s home page. Albemarle High School Alumni Association – The Albemarle High School Alumni Association inducted seven new members into its Alumni Hall of Fame on April 26. Guest speaker for the event was 1960 Albemarle HS grad and former Chief Operating Officer for the University of Virginia, Leonard Sandridge, who is a hall of fame member. The seven new inductees are Paul Cale, Jr.; Marilyn Jones Fantino; Scott Goodman; Wilmer Leatherman; Stanley Maupin; William Raines; and Sherman Shifflett. Destination ImagiNation’s (DI) Global Finals – Five teams from Albemarle County Public School qualified to compete in Destination ImagiNation’s (DI) Global Finals at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville from May 22-25. Three teams placed first in the statewide tournament held at Western Albemarle High School, including an Albemarle High School team that placed fifth in the Global Finals a year ago. Also first was a joint team from Burley and Walton middle schools and a team from Murray Elementary School. A separate Murray team and one from Woodbrook Elementary School finished second in their categories, also earning the right to compete in Globals. In its 14th year, DI competitions have involved more than one million participants from around the globe. The organization defines its mission as “developing opportunities that inspire the global community of learners, to utilize divers approaches in applying 21st century skills and creativity. Information on the ACPS teams can be found at: http://www2.k12albemarle.org/acps/division/communications/newsroom/Pages/Five%20ACPS%20Teams%20Advance% 20to%20Destination%20ImagiNation%E2%80%99s%20Global%20Finals.aspx Virginia Mathematics League – Albemarle High School Students outperformed 77 high school teams from across Virginia during this year’s competition. The competition challenges the mathematical reasoning and analysis skills of students through a series of monthly exams that began in September. Test results were accumulated over a six-month period to yield a final team score. Ryan Lake, an Albemarle High School senior, was one of six students statewide who received a perfect score on the monthly tests (he did that three times), and he finished second overall. Five other Albemarle students, including Wesley Daugherty, Jeannie Kim, Sims Gautam, Quinn Legallo-Malone and Laura Ungar, placed among the top 40 students in Virginia. Albemarle County Students Win State Science and Engineering Awards - Albemarle County Public Schools students won two first places awards, a second place, and a third place in the 29th annual Virginia State Science & Engineering Fair, held on April 6 at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia. Nearly 300 students from across the state offered 240 projects in 17 separate categories and in several special award categories. Sydney Giacalone, an Albemarle High School senior, placed first in the Plant Sciences category; Xiaoran (Seamore) Zhu, a sophomore at Western Albemarle High School, finished first in the Material and Bioengineering; Sims Gautam, an Albemarle High School senior, earned second place in Mathematical Sciences and two Albemarle High School juniors, Molly Thomson and Elizabeth Rintels, were third place finishers in a special category sponsored by the Virginia Chapter of the American Water Works Association. Two students, Ms. Giacalone and Mr. Gautam, will be competing in the Intel International Science & Engineering Fair in Phoenix, Arizona from May 12-17, by virtue of having won Best in Show honors at the Piedmont Regional Fair. More than 1,500 students from 70 different countries annually participate in the international competition. For more information on the specific projects by these students, visit: http://www2.k12albemarle.org/acps/division/communications/newsroom/Pages/Five%20Albemarle%20County%20Stude nts%20Win%20Awards%20at%20State%20Science%20and%20Engineering%20Fair.aspx Jouett Wind Energy Project Awarded - A team of students from Jack Jouett Middle School placed first in the Virginia KidWind Challenge 2013, a statewide competition among middle and high school students to design and demonstrate an efficient wind turbine. Students were asked to incorporate engineering and scientific principles in constructing a small- scale wind turbine and were evaluated according to the amount of electricity they were able to generate. Jouett also is one of two Albemarle County public schools collaborating with the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education and its Engineering School to create the first lab school in the nation. Together with Charlottesville City’s Buford Middle School, Charlottesville High School, and Albemarle High School, Jouett will offer classes in advanced manufacturing technologies. The state is providing a $300,000 planning grant for the program, which will expand training opportunities for students in science and engineering to prepare them better for careers in technology-rich professions. Spring Musical Opportunities – Albemarle High School presents “Hello Dolly” May 2, 2013, 8pm May 3, 8pm, 6pm Dinner Theater available May 5, 3pm Tickets available: http://www.ahspresents.com Monticello Players Present “In the Heights” May 17, 8pm May 18, 8pm May 19, 4pm Tickets available: https://tix7.seatyourself.biz/webstore/webstore.html?domain=monticellodrama&event Or on the Monticello High School website: http://www2.k12albemarle.org/school/mohs/Pages/default.aspx Donations to Albemarle County Public Schools – Albemarle County Public Schools received the following donations:  Murray High School received a donation in the amount of $125.00 from Don Soechting, to be used to help with expenses for Student Snack/Meals.  Hollymead Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from ACAC Fitness & Wellness Centers. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to purchase recreation supplies at Hollymead Elementary School.  Brownsville Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $8,918.81 from the Brownsville BEE Program. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to reimburse wage codes for BEE program at Brownsville Elementary School.  Crozet Elementary School received two donations totaling $1,720.44 from the Crozet PTO. The donor has requested that $1,550.16 be used to reimburse school for Eagle Time wages and $170.88 be used to reimburse for office supplies and paper purchase at Crozet Elementary School.  Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $10,355.93 from the Meriwether Lewis PTO. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to reimburse school for the Ezone Yearbook wages paid by Meriwether Lewis Elementary School.  Yancey Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $350.00 from Yancey Elementary School Activity Funds. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to reimburse for a public speaker at Yancey Elementary School.  Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $461.82 from the Stone Robinson PTO. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to reimburse the school budget for paying teachers in the Enrichment Program during the spring of 2012. These funds are going to fund the Floor Hockey and Film Makers clubs at Stone Robinson Elementary School.  Red Hill Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $967.99 from Saint Thomas Aquinas Church. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to purchase books for Red Hill Elementary School students to keep for summer reading.  Stony Point Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $136.10 from the Stony Point PTO. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to reimburse Stony Point Elementary School for snacks purchased for students taking SOLs.  Brownsville Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $3,000.00 from the Robert E. McConnell Foundation. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to purchase snacks at Brownsville Elementary School.  Greer Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $112.50 from a bake sale fundraiser. The donors requested that this contribution be used for any instructional needs at Greer Elementary School.  Hollymead Elementary School received two donations totaling $9,589.98 from the Hollymead PTO. $4,602.00 is a donation as additional instructional support at Hollymead Elementary School; and $4,987.98 is a donation to purchase 9 ELMO document cameras at Hollymead Elementary School. School Board website: www.k12albemarle.org MEMORANDUM To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors From: Gary O’Connell, Executive Director Date: April 23, 2013 Re: Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Quarterly Briefing cc: ACSA Board of Directors Mr. Tom Foley, County Executive Thank you once again for the opportunity to continue to update the Board of Supervisors as part of our regular quarterly briefings. We are scheduled to meet with the Board at your May 1st meeting. Below are some highlights of current items for the ACSA: 1. FY 2014 Budget & Water & Sewer Rates – The budget and rates for the next year were proposed to the ACSA Board on March 21 st. Our rates are effective with the start of the next fiscal year, beginning on July 1st. The ACSA Board will take up adoption of the rates in June, following a Public Hearing. We have proposed a slight decrease in the monthly rates for our average single-family residential customer. All other monthly rates will remain the same for non-single family custom- ers. The operating budget is proposed at $25.85 million, of which about two-thirds is for the purchase of water and wastewater treatment from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. We have also proposed nearly $6 million in capital projects for replacem ent and rehabilitation of our utility system. The development related new connections fees are proposed to increase 4%. The “connection fees” are the financial method for new development to pay the ACSA for growth related water and wastewater capital costs, which relates to having the water and wastewater capacity (lines and facilities) to serve new development in the future. 2. FY 2014 Capital Projects – Much of our work involves maintenance of our water distribution lines, wastewater collection system, and the as- sociated pump stations and tanks that serve those systems. Our Cap i- tal Improvement Program for FY 2014 is proposed at nearly $6 million; $5 million for water related projects and $1 million for wastewater r e- lated ones. I will highlight below those projects that are underway, and several new projects that are proposed with the next budget year b e- ginning in July:  Western Ridge-Foxchase – New interconnection to create a loop to help improve water quality. In the midst of complet- ing easement and design work.  Key West Water Main Replacement – Project will replace undersized and deteriorating water mains, an d improve fire flow in the area. Design work is underway, with construction planned for early 2014.  St. George/Buck Road Water Main Replacement – Older water lines, some believed to be 70 years old, are in need of replacement on these two Crozet streets. This project has been bid, below budget, and work is about to start.  Ashcroft Pump Station & Water Line Replacement – About 20% of the new 8-inch water line has been installed. Final design work underway for summer construction for the pump station work.  Crozet Water Main Replacement – Recent breaks mean this has gotten high priority for replacement, with undersized and aging water lines. Areas include Tabor Street, High Street, Hilltop Street and St. George Ave. (east of Crozet Ave.).  Glenmore Water Tank – Following a successful neighbor- hood meeting in February, we are completing some of the preliminary legal work to begin to design the project. F und- ing for construction not available until July 2015.  Ivy Road-Flordon Water Connection – An interconnect to improve water quality and fire flows, which serves West Leigh.  Ednam Water Pump Station – Pump replacement as part of the Ivy Road-Flordon connection project.  Woodbrook Sewer System Rehabilitation – As part of our continuing efforts to reduce infiltration and inflow (I&I) in our sewer system, this project includes manhole rehabilitation, pipe relining and rehabilitation, and some pipe replacement. Work is underway on this project. We have a study about to begin on sewer system rehabilitation in the Ednam area.  Hollymead Water Line Replacement – This project is part of our ongoing effort to replace undersized and deteriorating water lines in this subdivision; some upwards of 40 years old. The water line replacement by ACSA crews has been completed on Robin Lane, with Derby Lane and then Maiden Lane remaining.  Hardware Street Water Extension – Construction is un- derway on this new water main in Scottsville, with about 25% of the work completed. This new line provides a direct co n- nection from the tank to the downtown.  Buckingham Circle Water Line Replacement – This water line replacement has been completed.  Oak Hill Sewer – Work is nearly complete on this new sew- er line to serve a portion of Oak Hill. This project was in con- junction with Albemarle County using CDBG funding. 3. ACSA Strategic Plan – We are nearing completion of our 5-year Stra- tegic Plan for the future. We have worked particularly hard to involve the community, our customers, our employees, and the ACSA Board in this 5-year plan. These are larger strategic issues that we will need to address. A final plan will be completed for Board adoption in June. Return to agenda Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-9016 434.977.2970 • 434.293.8858 Fax www.rivanna.org MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SUPERVISORS THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: THOMAS L. FREDERICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY SUBJECT: QUARTERLY UPDATE DATE: MAY 1, 2013 I am scheduled to provide a quarterly briefing to the Board of Supervisors and the City Council in May 2013. I plan to cover the following topics, but would be happy to address any other issues brought forward by the elected officials: 1. Water Treatment Plant Granular Activated Carbon Improvements: All of the RWSA water treatment plants are being evaluated for an advanced upgrade in treatment to add granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration as a new process in addition to the conventional treatment facilities that have been in service for many years. GAC removes much of the natural trace organic matter in the source water, which limits the potential for reactions in the water distribution system between the trace matter and the free chlorine used for disinfection of the water. Those reactions, called disinfection byproducts, are regulated by the EPA, and those regulations are becoming more stringent under Stage 2 requirements which are effective in 2014. The GAC facilities will provide the assurance that our water plant operators will have the tools to meet Stage 2 requirements on a consistent basis. Final design is nearly completed for the Crozet and Scottsville Water Treatment Plants, and construction bidding will occur later this year. Our consultant is in the preliminary engineering and pilot plant stage for the three Urban water plants. An updated progress meeting to discuss the continuing performance of the pilot plant units will occur between staff and the consultant in May. As soon as sufficient pilot plant and laboratory data is available, a “hybrid” analysis will commence. For the Urban plants, “hybrid” is defined to encompass various options for less than 100% GAC treatment of water. GAC treatment is costly because of the high expense of exchanging the carbon media for regeneration as its adsorption capability diminishes with use. Hybrid options may include partial GAC treatment and blending, seasonal GAC operation, or “triggered” use based upon indicators of source water quality. Parameters for when and how much GAC 2 I:\BOS\BOSLocal\agenda\2013 Folders\0501\21.0_RWSAQuarterlyReport.doc treatment to provide may also be different at each treatment plant. In general, hybrid GAC will leave more trace organic material in the water, but benefits from a lower cost compared to 100% GAC; all GAC and hybrid options will cost more than what was estimated for chloramines. The Board of Directors will seek guidance from the public and elected officials regarding the selection of the objectives of GAC or hybrid GAC treatment from the following options: (1) minimum approach – for Stage 2 compliance only; (2) moderate approach – trace regulated disinfection byproducts (trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids) should not be greater than would have been achieved had chloramines been used; or (3) maximum approach – 100% GAC year round for superior water quality. Public input will be sought before the decision is made. 2. Operating Budgets: Operating Budgets for both the RWSA and RSWA have been introduced for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2013. Public hearings are scheduled for Tuesday, May 28, 2013 and the Boards of Directors are expected to deliberate each budget for adoption after each respective hearing. For RWSA, wholesale charges to the City and ACSA are proposed to decline in FY 2014, made possible by significant savings in bond refundings that occurred last fall. Our five year projection for the debt service component of rates is to remain near or below the FY 2013 rate for Urban Water, but with some increase in Urban Wastewater due to an upcoming significant size bond issuance to finance the new Rivanna Pump Station and tunnel. How this project affects the ACSA or City individually will depend upon the outcome of Cost Share Agreement negotiations. The RSWA budget continued a pattern over the past few years of austerity, providing only the programs directed by the City or County through Local Government Support Agreements. Vegetative wastes and clean fill received at the Ivy MUC vary with economic and weather conditions, but volume received is often close to the level needed to be self-supported. Other Ivy MUC services, including municipal solid waste and appliances, have been previously judged by the County as vital to maintain for those citizens not effectively served by private haulers, but the declining tonnages are well below what is necessary to build economies-of-scale for self-support at reasonable tipping fees, thereby public support has been necessary to maintain the service. A reduction of four permanent positions for the Ivy MUC is proposed July 1, along with reduced hours from the present six days-per-week to only five days-per-week (closing every Sunday and Monday). Except for the McIntire Recycling Center and Paper Sort, special HHW and amnesty day collections, and landfill remediation, the City is providing its own solid waste programs separate from RSWA. The County is now considering its own solid waste service options separate from RSWA as well, with possible implementation as soon as January 1. 3. Cost Share Agreements: We understand the City and ACSA have met, and are continuing to work on a comprehensive agreement as to how the two entities will share the costs of RWSA’s Capital Improvement Program. RWSA is providing technical support to either party when requested, but is not participating in the negotiations. It is important to complete this Agreement in 2013, as the $40 million Rivanna Pump Station project moves to construction in 2014. Return to agenda Contradictory Consequences A Free Enterprise Forum White Paper exploring how cash proffers negatively impact economic advancement, create false hope and hinder implementation of community supported comprehensive plans. Prepared by: Neil Williamson President Free Enterprise Forum 434.220.0781 www.freeenterpriseforum.org Preface – Contradictory Consequences: A Free Enterprise Forum White Paper The Free Enterprise Forum, as a part of its mission to inform, analyze and promote dialog, is pleased to present a research paper on cash proffers and their impact (or lack thereof) on community development. Significant data was derived from The Report on Proffered Cash Payments and Expenditures by Virginia’s Counties, Cities and Towns authored by The Commission on Local Government (CLG). The Free Enterprise Forum would like to thank CLG Senior Policy Analyst Zachary Robbins for his assistance. In addition, the author would like to thank the many builders, developers and local government staff members all of whom helped immensely in gathering relevant, public source material for this research. The overarching question this paper seeks to inform is whether cash proffers actually help fund locality infrastructure needs or serve as a disincentive to rezone land. Founded in 2003, the Free Enterprise Forum is a privately funded public policy organization focused on local government issues in the Central Virginia region. The geographic scope of this study mirrors those areas in which the Free Enterprise Forum operates. The goal of the Contradictory Consequences white paper is to promote dialog and discussion regarding the community impacts of cash proffers. The Free Enterprise Forum hopes this data and analysis will spark additional public interest in this important economic vitality issue. Well-informed citizens make well-informed decisions. Respectfully Submitted, Neil Williamson, President February 28, 2013 Cash Proffers Defined Charged with tabulating the collection and expenditure of cash proffers throughout the Commonwealth, the Commission on Local Government (CLG) annually conducts a survey of all localities authorized by code to collect cash proffers. According to their FY2011 Report, “The survey revealed that 38 (23.46%) of the 162 eligible localities (26 counties, 7 cities, and 5 towns) reported cash proffer activity during FY 2012. This represents a decrease of two localities (5.0%) in the number of local governments accepting cash proffers compared to FY2011”. The term “cash proffers” refers to the ability of high-growth localities in the State of Virginia to accept cash payments as a “reasonable condition” of a rezoning or amendment to a zoning map. As defined in Section 15.2-2298 of Virginia Code, reasonable conditions may include the payment of cash for any off-site road improvement or any off-site transportation improvement that is adopted as an amendment to the required comprehensive plan and incorporated into the capital improvements program. 1 Cash proffers are a form of conditional zoning in Virginia. Conditional zoning was enabled to address the inadequacy of traditional zoning methods and procedures when competing and incompatible land uses conflict. Virginia Code § 15.2-2296. At least in theory, conditional zoning allows land to be rezoned that might not otherwise be rezoned because the proffers protect the community in which the land is located by imposing additional regulations or conditions on the land being rezoned. Virginia Code § 15.2-2296; Riverview Farm Associates v. Board of Supervisors of Charles City County, 259 Va. 419, 528 S.E.2d 99 (2000); Gregory v. Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, 257 Va. 530, 514 S.E.2d 350 (1999). The Attorney General has stated that conditional zoning addresses the effects of changing land use patterns within communities, and that it permits differing land uses within those communities while protecting the community as a whole. 1997 Va. Op. Atty. Gen. 66. In short, proffers allow the impacts resulting from a rezoning to be better addressed.2 These voluntarily proffered payments, also referred to as cash proffers, comprise either (1) any money voluntarily proffered in writing signed by the owner of property subject to rezoning, and accepted by a locality pursuant to the authority granted by §15.2-2298 or §15.2-2303 of the Code of Virginia; or (2) any payment of money made pursuant to a development agreement entered into under the authority granted by §15.2-2303.1 of the Code of Virginia. 3 1 Guide To Cash Proffers in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Roanoke Valley Allegany Regional Commission January 25, 2008, Page 1 2Kamptner, Greg The Albemarle County Land Use Law Handbook, July 2012page 11-1 3 Report on Proffered Cash Payments and Expenditures By Virginia’s Counties, Cities and Towns 2010- 2011, Commission on Local Government Commonwealth of Virginia November 2011, Page 1 Although the Code of Virginia has authorized every jurisdiction to use some form of conditional zoning since 1987, only localities meeting specific criteria may accept cash proffers. On the basis of these criteria and census data from 1990 through 2010, 298 Virginia localities (89 counties, 37 cities, and 172 towns) were eligible to accept cash proffers during FY 2012.4 The CLG survey found that 40 (26.14%) of the 153 eligible localities (27 counties, 7 cities, and 6 towns) reported cash proffer activity during FY 2011. This represents a decrease of three localities (7.0%) in the number of local governments accepting cash proffers over FY 2010. During the current period, the aggregate amount of cash proffers collected and expended by those jurisdictions was $36,066,019 and $28,031,345, respectively. This represents a 25.9% decrease in cash proffer collections from the previous fiscal year. Cash proffer expenditures decreased by 39.1% over the same time period.5 Locality Maximum Cash Proffer Albemarle Single Family Detached $19,753 Townhouse $13,432 Multi Family $13,996 Charlottesville No cash proffers Greene $5,778 per unit Fluvanna $6,577 per unit Louisa $4,362 per unit Nelson No cash proffers Lower land values, lower property tax revenue - In concept, cash proffers are voluntary payments made by landowners to mitigate the impacts of changing the prescriptive zoning on their property. The concept works best when the rezoned value exceeds the increased cost of the cash proffer combined with the other increased costs of rezoning the property (time, additional proffers, carrying costs, etc.). Such a symbiotic 4 Ibid 5 Report on Proffered Cash Payments and Expenditures By Virginia’s Counties, Cities and Towns 2010- 2011, Commission on Local Government Commonwealth of Virginia November 2011, Page 3 relationship is difficult to achieve with automatic inflation increasing cash proffers and fragile, fickle housing markets not keeping pace. Many believe the increased cost of a cash proffer will be borne by the end user, the new homebuyer. While this can and does occur, it can only occur in a housing market that has constant upward motion. Affordable housing is a critical issue in all localities and in rising markets cash proffers further drive up new (and by extension existing) home prices. Basic economic theory indicates any increased cost must be paid by an entity that is a part of the transaction. Economic theory of the firm begins with theory of production. The firm is a supplier in market for goods and services. It has to adjust its production to satisfy the demand curve of its customers at profit. It is assumed that the firm or the owner of the firm always strives to produce efficiently, or at lowest cost. He will always attempt to produce the maximum level of output for a given dose of inputs avoiding waste whenever possible.6 If prices do not continually increase, some believe the proffer cost will be extracted from the developer (often referred to as “speculative enterprise”) profit margin. In reality, almost all projects require some level of financing to complete their development. In recent years, the level of financial analysis (or pro forma) required to obtain such financing have increased; therefore the “developer margin” must be maintained. If the margin is not retained, the project does not obtain the required financing to move forward; no cash proffer is paid. The economic definition of the “production function” is the relationship between the maximum amount of output that can be produced and the inputs required to make that output. From the production function, the cost curves of a firm for each of its products can be determined. Contribution of each factor of production i.e., land, capital is also determined from production functions. The price that a factor of production will command in the market will be determined by the production functions from the demand side.7 The theory of production decisions in the short run, as just outlined, leads to two conclusions (of fundamental importance throughout the field of economics) about the responses of business firms to the market prices of the commodities they produce and the factors of production they buy or hire: (1) the firm will produce the quantity of its product for which the marginal cost is equal to the market price and (2) it will purchase 6 Management Theory Review, Dr. Narayana Rao, December 11, 2011 7 Ibid or hire factors of production in such quantities that the price of the commodity produced multiplied by the marginal product of the factor will be equal to the cost of a unit of the factor. The first explains the supply curves of the commodities produced in an economy. Though the conclusions were deduced within the context of a firm that uses two factors of production, they are clearly applicable in general.8 According to the production theory, if the end user and developer are not available to accept the cost of the cash proffer it is the land owner, whose land will be discounted by the increased entitlement costs that cash proffers create. In turn, such reduced land values reduce the locality’s real estate tax assessed value and revenue (absent an increase in the tax rate). ‘By Right’ Development Encouraged Charlottesville and Albemarle are currently updating their State mandated comprehensive plans. These community vetted plans suggest the manner in which the locality wishes to grow in the next twenty years. In many, if not most, cases the zoning in a locality’s development area does not match the comprehensive plan designation. Comprehensive plan designation must be reviewed by the locality every five years under state code. While the property owner does not have to agree to the comprehensive plan changes, they cannot act on those new designations until they have rezoned the property. Alternatively, if the land owner chooses to move forward with the existing, some might call “stale”, zoning, which likely does not agree with the locality’s comprehensive plan, they can do so immediately without paying any cash proffers. Hanover County Board of Supervisors Chairman W. Canova Peterson IV told the Herald- Progress.com, “They [The Proffers Committee] recognized there was an unfairness. Some people had to pay it, some people didn’t. You could go to a site in my subdivision in one of the vacant lots, you go in there and build a house, you could have 10 kids and you won’t pay a proffer if we still had proffers. No zoning is required…It was not a situation that hit everybody fairly. I always felt that it was wrong in the sense that the least well-to-do of us have had to pay the same rates as the most well-to-do. For instance, you’re buying a $100,000 home, you’re talking about a 20 percent tax. If you’ve got a $1 million home it’s the same dollar amount and it becomes somewhat irrelevant at that level. So, it was kind of lousy for the people that were in the tightest situations”9. 8 Encyclopedia Britanica, Dr. Robert Dorfman, Emeritus Professor of Economics, Harvard University, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/477991/theory-of-production retrieved 2/15/2013 9 Herald-Progress.com, February 8, 2013 CASE STUDY - Lochlyn Hill – Albemarle County/City of Charlottesville In 2011, a developer acquired the rights to a project that included property in The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Charlottesville does not have a cash proffer, while Albemarle’s exceeds $19,000 per single family home. After calculating the increased value of the land with the rezoning in each locality (and calculating the time such applications include), the developer chose to rezone the property that was in the City (without cash proffers) to a Planned Urban Development (PUD) with no greater than 5.9 units per acre10 and chose NOT to rezone the eleven acres located in the county. These acres would be developed by-right. The development would consist of single-family homes, cottages and townhomes11. This calculated decision was based on calculation of the cost (in money and time) of rezoning the County land exceeded the increase value. In the City of Charlottesville staff report recommending approval of the project. City staff highlighted the benefits available under the rezoning as compared with the existing 100 year old plat. “The proposed PUD responds to the existing topography of the site, avoids the stream crossing, preserves 79 trees on the site, and guarantees 15% open space by virtue of being rezoned to PUD. The plan, however, is more in line with modern development techniques than the type of development in the rest of Belmont. “In differentiating between the two layouts, the impact on the environment is a large factor. The proposal uses a road layout that follows the topography of the site, while the Belmont plat did not take topography into account when it was drawn up over 100 years ago. Additionally, the 15% open space requirement of the PUD, along with the greater 10 Charlottesville PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET, TUESDAY, July 10, 2012 11 Tubbs, Sean, Charlottesville Tomorrow, Planners get first look at 204-unit city-county neighborhood, April 11, 2012 certainty of the required site plan submission that would follow the approval of PUD means the City would have more certainty regarding the future use of the land”12 Therefore, the City of Charlottesville due to its lack of cash proffer, reduced process time, and increased certainty of rezoning outcomes encouraged this land owner to request a rezoning while in Albemarle County the land owner was economically incentivized to not to follow the community vetted comprehensive plan vision but instead to construct lower density, less thoughtfully designed developments. The Albemarle portion of this project will be built utilizing prior zoning to meet local building and zoning code but absent the enhancements and flexibility a rezoning might allow. False Financial Hope – Sold to the public as an answer to infrastructure financing woes, cash proffers were thought to provide significant new revenue for Capital Improvement Plans (CIP). The annual CIP for most localities total in the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. These plans represent the costs of building the required infrastructure to deliver government services (i.e. schools, fire stations, etc.). The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a five year schedule prepared for capital projects in the County. It is required to forecast capital outlays for the upcoming fiscal year and the ensuing four years. The information provided in the CIP is useful for projecting future revenue needs and setting funding priorities. It is also a valuable planning tool for the preparation of the County budget. The CIP is intended to advise the Board of Supervisors so better decisions can be made regarding capital expenditures. It is not intended to be used so particular capital projects can reserve funding. The County’s CIP is its plan for capital expenditures over the upcoming five years. Capital expenditures/projects are defined in general as the purchase or construction of long-lived, high-cost, tangible assets. The CIP is updated on an annual basis, so capital projects can be removed when they are completed or as priorities change. Once adopted, capital project priorities may change throughout the year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that particular projects may not be funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. The status of any project becomes increasingly uncertain the further in the future it is projected. In accordance with Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, the County can not accept proffers without first adopting a CIP. Proffers are voluntary contributions typically offered as part of a rezoning application to mitigate impacts associated with new 12 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT, Brian Haluska, Revised January 13, 2012 page 8 development. Proffers can include cash, property or any other contribution that is directly attributable to the development. Since proffers are specific to a particular development, the County can accept proffers that are not found in the CIP. However, before the County can receive property or cash from a proffer the CIP needs to be updated to include the project to which the proffer is connected. The proffer language itself should specify how cash or property will be used if the County chooses not to use the cash or property for its intended purpose.13 Localities see cash proffers as a valuable source of revenue to address the impacts from development and they support the funding of important County projects which would otherwise be funded through general tax revenue. Locality Capital Improvement Plan FY 2012 Albemarle $21,506,920 Charlottesville $24,000,000 Greene $840,746 Fluvanna $5,888,000 Louisa $6,083,000 Nelson $900,500 In reality many, if not most of the infrastructure demanded by the CIP are needed regardless of the number of new housing starts. A review of the Albemarle County Schools CIP reveals the following classification of spending: Administrative Technology, Instructional Technology, Telecommunications Network Upgrade, School Bus Replacement, School Maintenance/Replacement, School Facility Lease 14 In a separate document the School Board included additions to a number of schools and modernization of others. While all of these may be Capital needs for the County it is questionable that new development generated all of these needs. Certainly residents who purchase new homes may have children that need to ride the school bus but so do residents who purchase existing homes. 13 County of Louisa 2013 Capital Improvement Plan, Page 6 14 County of Albemarle School Board CIP October 2012 Further, tying the funding for these infrastructure needs to an intermittent revenue source ensures priorities will not be completed in a timely manner. In addition, banking on unrealized cash proffers creates a false sense of wealth that may never be realized. In November 2012, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was presented a staff report outlining cash proffers that were in excess of $49.3 million dollars quite literally off the chart15. As one looks at this chart (above) and sees almost $50 million dollars proffered, one might anticipate the cash proffer program is answering the very need it was designed but the Free Enterprise Forum estimates at least 28% of those proffers will never be collected as they are associated with the now defunct Biscuit Run development. It is interesting that while the State of Virginia acquired the property for a state park on December 31, 2009 16, Albemarle County continued to calculate those proffers as receivable in November 2012. In addition, even those projects that may eventually get constructed are likely over stated for cash proffers. Very few, if any, residential projects have built out to their maximum density. This is a reaction to the market demands as well the regulatory environment that bases the cost of the entire project on the overall density. This is in direct contradiction to the goal of densification of Albemarle’s development areas. According to the Code of Virginia, Urban Development Areas are areas for compact, mixed use urban development. Densities and intensities within UDAs are expected to be a minimum of four or more dwellings per developable acre for single 15 Cash Proffer Staff Report, Albemarle County November 7, 2012 page 1 16 Wheeler, Brian, Biscuit Run bought by Virginia to create new state park in Albemarle, Charlottesville Tomorrow, December 31, 2009 family detached housing, a minimum of six or more dwellings per developable acre for townhouses, or a minimum of 12 or more multifamily units per developable acre 17. Of equal or perhaps greater import in the chart is the relatively low number of proffers collected. In 2011, Albemarle collected just over $200 thousand dollars in cash proffers which provided just 1.1% of the 2011CIP funding. Considering Albemarle’s population, this represents a per capita contribution of $2.08 annually. Responding to the cash proffer demand and market conditions $0 in cash proffers were offered to Albemarle County in 2009 – 2011. Despite calls to the contrary, when calculated accurately cash proffers will never be a significant funding source for CIP. Development Area Pipeline Jammed, Tax Revenue Reduced, Rural Areas Jeopardized – The concept of denser more urban core is at the heart of Virginia’s mandated Urban Development Areas (UDAs). Beyond simple economics of delivery of government services, several studies indicate when placed correctly these UDAs can have a positive impact on economic development. Planner Peter Katz has been calculated that the vast discrepancy in property tax revenue per acre between commercial development in low-density versus high-density settings in Sarasota, Fla. A mid-rise tower with retail on the ground floor and condominiums above could yield literally 100 times the property tax revenue per acre as a Wal-Mart18. Interestingly, Alanna McKeeman, who performed an in-depth analysis of the Fairfax County tax base for her 2012 Master’s Thesis in urban planning at Virginia Tech, “Land Use, Municipal Revenue Impacts, and Land Consumption” found: “Clearly, the land and buildings in [the Reston] study area are quite valuable compared to County averages for the same land uses. Extremely high-value, dense housing and office space surround the Town Center, suggesting agglomeration benefits and perhaps a premium on the pedestrian accessibility of these properties to various amenities in the surrounding area. … The denser, walkable nature of Reston Town Center, combined with proximity to Dulles airport, appears to result in higher property values.”19 17 Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan adopted 2007 page 4 18 Bacon, James The Fiscal Fix, Bacon’s Rebellion June 18, 2012 19 Bacon, James, Land Use and Tax Revenue in Fairfax County, Bacon’s Rebellion, February 19, 2013 Thus encouraging denser uses encourages an increased tax base. It only follows that requiring cash proffers for increases in density hinders said increased tax base. If cash proffers hinder density, then cash proffers hinder commercial growth as well. Case Study: Crozet Downtown District The vision for the downtown district of Crozet in Albemarle County is based on residential over retail. Image a storefront on Crozet Avenue and two stories of apartments above the storefront. Each floor will have four apartments. Absent Albemarle County’s proactive zoning, the developer would be required to provide $103968 (12,996 * 8) cash proffer for the residential units. Adding this to the construction and operating costs, places the required rent higher than the market will bear. Albemarle County recognized this when they proactively rezoned much of the downtown area and created an entire new zoning district without cash proffers. In the code it stipulates - By right uses; residential. The following residential uses are permitted by right, provided that the first floor of the building in which the residential use exists is designed for and occupied only by a use permitted by subsections 20B.2(A), (B), (C) or (E).20 If a no cash proffer policy is acceptable in the downtown Crozet District, why is it not preferred in the other, equally important, development areas? Case Study Dunlora Forest In 2011, a developer acquired the rights to develop a parcel just off of Rio Road in Albemarle County’s designated development area. The property had existing zoning for 100 residential units. The developer evaluated the cost of seeking a rezoning that might allow up to an additional 100 residential units. One of the largest costs of rezoning would be the cash proffers that would be charged not only on the increase in density but on all residential units in the project. 20 Albemarle County Code, Downtown Crozet District, Section 20.B Photo Credit: Mudhouse Based on the topographical challenges of the site, it could be assumed if they were able to gain a rezoning for a total of 200 residential units the majority would be townhomes. While it is likely there would be a mix of small lot single family units and townhome, to estimate the cash proffers conservatively, let’s assume all would be townhomes. Using that assumption, under Albemarle County’s cash proffer policy the increased cost would be $2.69 million dollars (200*$13,432). In addition, it is estimated such a rezoning would take at a minimum 2 years to work through the approval process. The financial carrying costs for this project would approach $1,000,000 utilizing private financing (as banks are increasingly hesitant to finance such loans). Therefore, while a rezoning could double the density of the project it would come at a cost of $3.69 million dollars or $36,900 ($3,690,000/100) for each additional developable unit. In addition, the per new unit surcharge could increase if the total density of the project was reduced as a function of the rezoning process. After running the numbers, the developer chose to produce the by right density rather than risking the additional time and cost of a rezoning.21 According to the Piedmont Environmental Council, Albemarle County has in excess of 10,000 units already rezoned for residential development 22. Why have these projects not moved forward? Have the embedded costs of development in Albemarle County, including cash proffers, created a cost burden the market is unable to bear? If growth trends continue, won’t these significant embedded costs push residential development out of Albemarle County’s designated growth areas and into the rural areas? The reality is that cash proffers contribute to the paradigm that single family rural residential development remains the least expensive, lowest 21 Armstrong, Charlie, Southern Development Personal Interview February 20, 2013 22 Werner, Jeff, Piedmont Environmental Council, Email correspondence February 13, 2013 Image Credit http://webspace.ship.edu/cajant/images/albemarle_county_landcover.jpg risk, easiest to finance and most profitable development option in Albemarle County. If cash proffers are pushing development into the rural areas and surrounding localities, what are the community costs of increased traffic, more costly government services delivery, as well as loss of environmental contributing farmland, and productivity? Competitive Disadvantage - In the Richmond area, Hanover County eliminated their cash proffer on new homes late last year. In late February, Hanover announced they’re considering a plan that would charge developers as little as $2,306 per lot to help cover the cost of new road projects spurred by residential growth23 Chesterfield County, the only Richmond locality currently applying a cash proffer, is reviewing their policy (currently $18,966) as a part of their comprehensive plan. Several rezoning cases have been deferred multiple times by the Chesterfield Planning Commission awaiting an outcome of their cash proffer debate. All of these projects are seeking a variance from the cash proffer to provide their projects with an even playing field as compared with surrounding localities. When Hanover County went from being the highest cash proffer in the region to eliminating the program, one residential development did not wait for the rollback policy to go into effect, they dropped prices by $10,000 and added $2,000 incentive for closing costs24. In the Richmond market, this cost reduction means that home is price accessible to over 14,000 potential new home buyers who previously could not afford it. Leapfrog development is generally accepted as residential development that is located outside a neighboring jurisdictional boundary in order to receive more favorable land prices and/or regulatory treatment in an adjoining locality. This is directly in conflict with locality planned Urban Development Areas designed to focus development into specific areas to more efficiently deliver government services. Urban Development Area is defined by Virginia Code Section § 15.2-2223.1 "Urban development area" means an area designated by a locality that is (i) appropriate for higher density development due to its proximity to transportation facilities, the availability of a public or community water and sewer system, or a developed area and(ii) to the extent feasible, to be used for redevelopment or infill development. 23 Shuleeta, Brandon, Hanover considers restoring proffers, Richmond Times Dispatch, February 25, 2013 24 Calos, Katherine, Hanover Developers jump at chance to avoid proffers, Richmond Times-Dispatch December 11, 2012 Leapfrog development tends to result in increased pressure on transportation networks on both localities.25 Why does leapfrog development occur? When faced with two equally attractive development sites, one in the urban core with cash proffer requirements and another, perhaps further out, without the cash proffer requirement, which project will move forward first? The increase in demand for housing farther from inner cities is partly due to mistaken government policies. Zoning restrictions, for example, often lead to sprawl by requiring high-density residential construction and large parking lots for businesses. Such regulations favor sprawl while limiting the choices of homebuyers and business owners.26 Conclusion: Repeal the Rezoning Ransom The siren’s song of cash proffers is very strong for elected officials. The idea of generating revenue from new home buyers (who are not yet voters) to “pay their way” is too good to be true. The negative impacts of cash proffers as documented in this paper include tearing up the community vision as expressed in the comprehensive plan. All Virginia Localities are required to have Urban Growth Areas where they plan to focus growth. Such design provides economic efficiency in delivery of core government functions and preserves important ecological contributions of the rural areas. Unfortunately, cash proffers discourage rezoning in the development areas and encourages the very type of large lot low density residential construction in rural areas. Sold to the public as a way to make growth pay for itself, the unintended negative economic and planning impacts have caused localities across the Commonwealth to repeal such ordinances and replace these funds with more dependable and equitable infrastructure funding options. Today, rather than simply recalibrating their cash proffer calculation, as Albemarle County is doing, full repeal of cash proffers in all localities is a much more economically sensible and sustainable alternative. Cash proffers are per unit fees “voluntarily” extracted from applicants seeking to rezone their property. These funds were designed to help fund major facilities and infrastructure, such as schools, roads, parks, libraries, courthouses and fire stations that are required to service the new residential (or commercial) units. 25 Code of Virginia § 15.2-2223.1 A. 26 Miller, Mark, What Causes Sprawl?, National Center for Policy Analysis blog, October 2, 2003 In theory, such “voluntary” proffers would be directly tied to the costs associated with the increased density of a rezoning. In this paper we have found several case studies where cash proffers lowered land values, encouraged by right development contrary to comprehensive plans and fostered a false hope for outside infrastructure funding. In addition this economic disincentive promotes rural/leapfrog development and hinders the entire community’s economic vitality. In addition cash proffers are an unreliable way to fund infrastructure spending. Forecasting cash proffer revenue is much like predicting snow in Central Virginia, localities do not know when it is coming, how much they are actually going to get or when it will stop. Cash proffers rarely, if ever, total the amounts localities are banking on. Based on this research, we believe local governments are starting to recognize the negative impacts of cash proffers. Localities are finding that just because the state legislature may empower the ability to collect cash proffers in may not be in the localities best interest to collect them. The elimination of cash proffers will promote better community design and encourage new home construction invigorating the economic vitality of all localities. The Free Enterprise Forum is encouraged that the FY2011 CLG survey found the number of localities accepting cash proffers had declined. We are also encouraged by the actions of Hanover County to repeal their cash proffer policy and eagerly await the results of several other locality cash proffer reviews. Cash proffers have produced a plethora of Contradictory Consequences without achieving significant benefit. Now is the time to repeal this rezoning ransom. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Review of County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT Secondary Six-Year Plan for 2014-2019 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Work session to review the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT Secondary Six-Year Plan. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Walker, Davis, Benish, and Sorrell PRESENTER: David Benish LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements establishes the priorities for road improvements in the State’s Secondary Road system (roads with a route number of 600 or higher). The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Secondary Six-Year Plan (SSYP) is the construction program for the secondary road system based on the County’s Priority List and reflects available state road funding allocated to the County. A separate program exists for the Primary and Interstate road systems. The County’s Priority List and the VDOT SSYP are typically reviewed annually. Based on the direction provided by the Board regarding projects to be funded, VDOT will draft a revised SSYP. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs. Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community. DISCUSSION: Attachment A is the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements adopted by the Board on May 2, 2012. Attachment B is the VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program. Staff will revise the County’s Priority List and VDOT Six Year Program for the public hearing based on input received from the Board. Available Funding – VDOT has provided the following projected funding allocations for Albemarle County: FISCAL YEAR SECONDARY UNPAVED ROAD FUND1 CTB UNPAVED ROAD FUND 2 REG. STATE FUNDS (teletax fee) SECONDARY FORMULA FUNDS TOTAL FUNDS 2013-14 $0 $71,588 $295,492 $0 $367,080 2014-15 $0 $584,942 $308,284 $0 $893,226 2015-16 $0 $881,454 $308,284 $0 $1,189,738 2016-17 $137,955 $997,207 $308,284 $137,955 $1,443,446 2017-18 $170,249 $997,207 $308,284 $170,249 $2,043,491 2018-19 $204,172 $997,207 $308,284 $204,172 $2,190,541 Totals $512,376 4,529,605 $1,587,578 $512,376 $8,587,578 Total unpaved road funds $5,041,981 Notes: 1- Roads must carry 50 vehicle per day (VPD) or greater. 2- Must be applied to unpaved roads with traffic counts of 200 vehicles per day (VPD) or greater. Funding for the next six years is projected to increase significantly from the prior year’s projections of $350,000 per year. The more significant increases in funding are projected in years 4 through 6 of the Six Year Program. Most of the funding increases are allocated for paving unpaved roads. Since last year, changes have occurred to state funding sources for unpaved roads. There are two categories of unpaved road funds this year - 1) Secondary Unpaved Road Funds and 2) the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) Formula Unpaved Road Funds. AGENDA TITLE: Review of County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT SSYP May 1, 2013 Page 2 Category one, the Secondary Unpaved Road Funds, are construction funds generated by a formula for use towards road paving projects and which is subject to a penalty formula adjustments if the funds are not used for road paving projects. Funds from this category could be used for other types of projects, but the County’s future allocations would be reduced based upon a formula adjustment. Category two, the CTB Formula Unpaved Road Funds, is funding that must be used to pave gravel roads that have greater than 200 vehicle trips per day (VPD). As stated by VDOT staff : “Eligibility requirements for the CTB Formula Unpaved Road [category 2] funds set forth in § 33.1-23.1 of the Code requires roadways to have a traffic count greater than 200 VPD. These funds may only be programmed to roadways with traffic volumes greater than 200 VPD. The penalty associated with the regular construction formula [category1] unpaved road funds with a traffic count greater than 50 VPD does not apply as set forth in § 33.1-23.1:1.” Proposed Modifications to County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements (Priority List) Many of the transportation projects and priorities identified in the County’s Priority List are derived from the recommendations of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Both the Comprehensive Plan and the LRTP are currently in the process of being reviewed and updated by the Planning Commission and the MPO; therefore staff recommends that no major changes be made to the Priority List this year. A more comprehensive review of this Priority List and other transportation priorities will be undertaken next year with the completion of the Comprehensive Plan and the LRTP update. Staff has received three new requests for road construction improvements. Most other comments and requests received over the year have been for roads already listed on the County’s Priority List of Road Improvements, or were associated with primary roads. The public requests are:  Castle Rock Road (Rt. 691)—Public request to pave the road due to erosion issues. Some sections of this road may not be eligible because traffic volume is below 50 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The section from Route 635 to the dead end meets the minimum volume requirement (120 VPD), but the section from Route 635 to Rt. 636 has only 30 VPD.  Clark Road (Rt. 674)—Public request to pave at least some portions of the road from Millington Road (Rt. 671) and Brown’s Gap Turnpike (Rt. 810). VDOT will evaluate whether certain sections can be improved to address erosion and safety issues (paving along blind curve locations). The road carries 46 VPD and may not be eligible for unpaved road funding. VDOT staff should evaluate conditions on the road and determine if there are any spot improvements that can be made to improve road conditions.  Improve sight distance at Rose Hill Church Lane (Rt.762) and Milton Road (Rt.732)—VDOT has determined that any substantial improvement to sight distance would require a shifting or relocation of the intersection. This project would have to be included in the County’s Strategic Priorit ies page of the County Priority List and prioritized high enough to be included in VDOT’s SSYP for funding. While there will be some additional funding in the future for general road construction projects, those funds are still relatively limited. Milton Road carries 960 VPD (2011) and Rose Hill Church Lane carries 120 VPD (2006). The following are additional comments and recommendations from VDOT and County staff regarding the County’s Priority List of Improvments:  VDOT staff has reviewed both the Rural Rustic Road (RRR) Paving Project list and the Regular Road Paving Project list and confirmed that the projects on the RRR list accurately reflect the projects’ eligibility for RRR paving.  Buck Mountain Ford Lane (Rt. 776) should be deleted from the Regular Paving Projects List (the last project on the list). The project is not eligible for paving because its traffic volume is below 50 VPD.  Several of the County’s strategic secondary road improvement priorities have been completed or are nearly complete and should be deleted from the Priority List. These include: - The County’s portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway; - Jarman’s Gap Road (Rt. 691) (under construction); - Georgetown Road (Rt. 656); - Rose Hill Church Lane (Rt. 762) RRR paving project; AGENDA TITLE: Review of County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT SSYP May 1, 2013 Page 3 - Fortune Lane (Rt. 704) RRR paving project; - Blufton Road (Rt. 672) RRR paving project; and - Happy Creek Road (Rt. 608) RRR paving project. Proposed Modifications to the VDOT Secondary Six-Year Plan (SSYP) The projected funds in the current VDOT SSYP for FY 13 through FY 18 were allocated to the Black Cat Road bridge project, the Dry Bridge Road bridge project, the Broomley Road bridge project, the Dick Woods Road bridge project, the Bear Creek Road RRR paving project and the Pocket Lane RRR paving project in the current VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program (approved last year). The following are VDOT and County staff comments and recommendations:  All three bridge replacement projects in the VDOT Six Year Program are on schedule and no additional funds are anticipated to be needed at this time.  VDOT and County staff recommend that Bear Creek Road (Rt.774) not be paved and be removed from the SSYP and the County priority list of improvements. VDOT has indicated that the road would be very difficult to upgrade given the current road alignment and topography of the area. It is an expensive road to pave ($1,206,130) and would serve a low volume of traffic (80 AADT, 5/4/06).  County staff recommends that the Pocket Lane (Rt. 703) paving project and the Dickerson Road (Rt. 606) bridge replacement project be retained in the VDOT SSYP.  Given the focus of future State funding on road paving projects, County staff recommends that five new road paving projects be included in the Six Year Construction Program: Rio Mills Road, Doctor’s Crossing (Rt. 784), Midway Road (Rt. 824), Keswick Drive (Rt.878) and Gillums Ridge Road. Rio Mills Road is the highest priority road paving project due to the volume and type of traffic on the road and its location within or near the designated Development Area (Hollymead and the northern Urban Area). Doctor’s Crossing , Midway Road, Keswick Drive and Gillums Ridge Road are the highest ranked RRR paving projects not yet included in the VDOT SSYP. Including those roads will ensure that the projected CTB Unpaved Road Funds are allocated in the SSYP. FY 19 is the “new” sixth year of the SSYP and the FY 19 funds may be needed to complete funding for the Pocket Lane paving project. Because the total cost for RRR paving projects in general have been lower than previously estimated in the Six Year Secondary Construction Program, funds may al so be available for an additional project(s). Due to the increase in State funding in the out years of the next six years, major construction projects identified on the strategic priorities list (page 1 of Attachment A) may be viable projects to again include in the VDOT SSYP in the future. Staff recommends that in light of the pending completion of the Comprehensive Plan update and the MPO LRTP, that discussion of changes to the strategic priority list be addressed in next year’s review after t he Comprehensive Plan and LRTP updates have been completed. BUDGET IMPACT: The Six Year Secondary Road process establishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of State/VDOT secondary road construction funds and does not impact County funding. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff requests that the Board: 1) provide comments on the County’s Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment A) and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program (Attachment B) and 2) schedule a public hearing on the County Priority List and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program on June 12, 2013. ATTACHMENTS A – Albemarle County Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements B – VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program (FY13 to FY18) Return to agenda